yirrNRLF 


^   5   b72    ^0 


L= 


115 

A  5/ 


Ubc  IHnivcxeit^  ot  Cbicago 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  LITERARY  WORK  OF  AMMIANUS 


A   DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE   FACULTY   OF   THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL   OF   ARTS 

AND   LITERATtfRE   IN    CANDIDACY    FOR   THE   DEGREE 

OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 


DEPARTMENT  OF 
THE   LATIN   LANGUAGE   AND   LITERATURE 


BY 

MARY   JACKSON   KENNEDY 


Press  of 

'HE  New  Era  Printing  Compan» 

Lancaster,  Pa 

I9I2 


Ube  xantversttp  ot  Cbicaao 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  LITERARY  WORK  OF  AMMIANUS 


A   DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO   THE   FACULTY    OF   THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL    OF   ARTS 

AND    LITERATURE   IN    CANDIDACY   FOR   THE   DEGREE 

OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 


DEPARTMENT    OF 
THE   LATIN   LANGUAGE  AND   LITERATURE 


BY 

MARY   JACKSON   KENNEDY 


\ 


Press  of 

'he  New  Era  Printing  Companv 

Lancaster.  Pa. 

I9I2 


♦  • 


.'  i  ■■  < 


PREFACE. 

To  Professor  Hendrickson,  at  whose  suggestion  this  thesis 
was  undertaken,  and  with  whose  encouragement  it  was  carried 
out,  I  wish  to  make  all  due  acknowledgment. 

Mary  Jackson  Kennedy. 


257700 


THE  LITERARY  WORK  OF  AMMIANUS. 


Standing,  as  he  does,  the  last  figure  in  Roman  historical 
literature,  Ammianus  has  a  wide  field  from  which  to  choose 
style  and  literary  form.  Apart  from  all  external  evidence,  his 
work  is  proof  of  a  heterogeneous  education  and  omnivorous 
reading.  Much  has  been  written  on  the  barbarities  and 
extravagances  of  his  diction  but  the  plea  contained  in  his  own 
modeatly  proud  expression,  ut  miles  quondam  et  Graecus, 
is  still  the  best  apology  for  the  liberties  which  he  has  taken  with 
the  Latin  language,  especially  when  we  remember  that  to  the 
eyes  and  ears  of  the  corrupt  age  in  which  he  lived  simplicity 
was  common  and  the  unaffected  vulgar.  His  theory  of  com- 
position, although  as  interesting  a  matter  as  stylistic  problems, 
has  been  little  discussed.  We  cannot  doubt  that  Ammianus 
had  weighed  this  latter  question  carefully:  the  schools  of 
rhetoric  dominated  the  age,  and  none  who  had  come  under  their 
influence  could  escape  the  necessity  of  limits  imposed  by  tradi- 
tion. A  strict  conception  of  the  ideal  in  historiography  had 
long  existed.  To  its  laws  the  majority  of  Latin  authors,  whose 
writings  touched  or  lay  within  the  sphere  of  history,  had  given 
recognition,  either  in  word  or  practice.  The  great  masters  in 
this  department  of  Roman  literature,  Livy,  Sallust,  Tacitus, 
had  chosen  for  the  most  part  to  abide  within  the  limits  set  by 
this  theory.  Between  these  writers  and  Ammianus  had  arisen 
biography,  which,  falling  by  its  own  legitimate  tendency  within 
the  influence  of  encomiastic  theory,  had  become  at  the  hands 
of  Nepos  and  Suetonius  a  recognized  medium  for  the  lasting 
memory  of  men  and  events,  a  medium  of  such  power  that 
influence  from  its  methods  on  those  traditional  in  history  was 
inevitable.  We  find  the  authors  of  the  Historia  Augusta 
therefore  openly  transgressing  the  long-honored  traditions  of 


2  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

historiography  and  reducing  history  to  a  mere  chain  of  court 
trivialities  and  incidents.  Still  another  factor  that  worked 
for  change  of  theory  in  the  realm  of  historical  literature  was 
the  florid  style  and  tasteless  subject-matter  of  the  panegyrists. 
It  was  amidst  such  a  complex  inheritance  of  influences  that  the 
Greek  soldier  of  Asiatic  origin  set  himself  the  bold  task  of 
taking  up  the  threads  of  Roman  history  where  they  had  fallen 
from  the  hands  of  Tacitus,  and  carrying  them  down  to  a  period 
contemporaneous  with  his  own  activity.  It  has  not  escaped 
the  notice  of  critics  that  Tacitus  was  his  model  in  many 
respects,  notably  so  in  language.  Points  of  contact  or  imi- 
tation in  technique,  however,  have  not  been  carefully  traced 
or  strongly  emphasized,  and  yet  it  is  in  this  respect  perhaps  that 
Tacitus  has  best  served  Ammianus  as  a  guide.  Similarities 
of  language  may  be  unconscious  reminiscence  or  repetition; 
coincidences  in  theory,  by  their  very  nature,  must  be  deliberate 
and  for  a  settled  purpose.  We  would  not  have  the  word 
theory  in  this  connection  misinterpreted.  It  would  be  going 
too  far  to  insist  upon  or  even  claim  a  strict  historical  method  of 
composition  for  Ammianus;  to  no  such  fixed  principles  does  he 
appear  to  bind  himself.  He  seems  rather  to  have  chosen  from 
history,  biography,  panegyric,  whatever  suited  his  own  taste, 
and  was  to  his  eyes  best  adapted  to  his  purpose;  points  of 
technique  once  chosen,  he  shaped  them  to  his  own  ends  by 
means  of  devices  learned  in  the  school  of  rhetoric.  The  result 
is  a  system  so  elastic  that  it  can  hardly  be  called  a  consistent 
theory,  and  even  from  its  light  exactions  the  author  often 
escapes,  not  wilfully  but  in  apparent  unconsciousness  of  its 
laws,  however  flexible.  In  spite  of  the  incongruities  and 
inconsistencies  inevitably  attendant  on  so  lax  an  art,  much 
can  be  found  in  the  "Rerum  Gestarum  Libri"  that  is  the  out- 
come of  a  legitimate  technique,  which  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously was  part  of  the  debt  of  Ammianus  to  Tacitus.  To  offer 
tentative  matter  for  the  substantiation  of  the  view  just  stated 
is  the  object  of  this  paper.  Data  for  the  identification  of 
method   will   be   taken   from   parallel   studies   of  the   authors 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  3 

compared,    and   these   studies   will   be   confined   to   points   of 
technique  in  the  delineation  of  character. 

That  Ammianus  took  up  his  work  as  a  direct  continuation 
of  Tacitus  is  a  commonplace  of  any  history  of  Latin  literature. 
This  is  the  interpretation  put  upon  his  own  words,  XXXI. 
i6,  9:  Haec  ut  miles  quondam  et  Graecus,  a  principatu  Caes- 
aris  Nervae  exorsus  ad  usque  Valentis  interitum  pro  virium 
explicavi  mensura. 

His  imitation  of  Tacitus  in  many  points  does  not  seem  to  be 
fully  recognized,  and  the  wide  difference  between  Tacitus  and 
Ammianus  in  the  treatment  of  individual  character  has  been 
one  of  the  strongest  hindrances  to  the  recognition  of  this 
imitation.  To  formulate  the  difference  mentioned  in  the 
broadest  terms,  the  method  used  by  Tacitus  is  the  indirect, 
that  of  Ammianus,  the  direct;  the  former  is  artistic,  the  latter 
scientific. 

We  shall  expect,  therefore,  to  find  the  method  of  Ammianus 
governed  by  the  rules  laid  down  by  Polybius,  who  denied  to 
historians  the  dramatic  privilege  of  presenting  to  the  reader 
historical  characters  measured  by  the  author's  personal 
standard.  According  to  these  rules,  a  man's  acts  must  be 
related  by  the  historian  without  bias  (Polyb.,  I.  14,  7  .  .  .  8. 
ovT€  T(ov  (f)tXQ)v  Karrjyopelv  ovre  rots  e')(j9pov<i  iiraivelv  OKtrqreov  .  .  • 
aTTOtTTavre?  ovv  ratv  Trparrov  rwv  avrol<i  rot?  Trpairofievoit  i^apfioa-reov 
To,^  irpeTTOvaa^;  aTro(f)pda€i9  Kal  8i,aXr)-\jr€is  iv  toI<;  VTro/xvqfiacnv) ;  circum- 
stances, influences,  hereditary  traits  must  be  weighed  in  the 
balance,  reconciled  and  related  to  circumstance  and  action  volun- 
tary or  involuntary  (Polyb.,  IX.  22,  9,  16.  .  .  .  "Evioi  fikv  yap 
eXey^etr^at  6aai,  ra^  <f)V(r€t,<:  viro  t(ov  irepLaTaaecov  Kai  tow  fiev 
rat?  i^ovaiai'i  KUTacfyavelf  yiyvecrdai,  Kal  6\co<t  rov  irpo  rov  j(^p6vov 
avacrriWovrai,  tow  he  ttoXlv  iv  Tat?  aTV')(idL<i) .  Then  only  will  the 
picture  be  a  true  one.  More,  the  author's  investigation  must 
be  free  and  open;  he  must  give  not  merely  the  finished  prod- 
uct of  his  brush,  we  must  see  each  progressive  touch  in  the 
work  (Polyb.,  X.  26,  9.  .  .  .  KaC  Trep  'qfiel<;  .  .  .  eV  aviriwv  rSiv 
irpayfxdrcov  ah  rov  KaOrjicovra  Xoyov  dpiJb6^ovT€<;  aTrocfiaLvo/xeOa  irepi 


4  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

re r5iv  ^aaCkemv  koL  tmv  ein^avSiv  avBpcov,  vofii^ovr€<;  rainrjv  6l  Keiorepav 
elvai  Koi  T0t9  'ypd^ovai  koL  rot?  ava'^L'yvdxTKOvcn  rrjv  iinaijfiaatav). 

The  author  who  employs  this  direct  or  scientific  method  is 
limited  to  the  purely  subjective,  and  barred  by  the  very 
spirit  of  his  work  from  the  indirect  technique.  The  indirect 
method,  on  the  other  hand,  while  adopting  as  a  convenience 
objective  media,  need  set  no  such  definite  limits  to  its  scope. 
Art  is  freer  than  science.  The  author,  with  his  finger  on  the 
pulse  of  the  world,  includes  the  needs  of  the  reader  as  well  as 
the  hearts  of  his  characters  in  his  world-knowledge,  and  his 
art  is  plastic  for  both.  Where  the  narrative,  the  recorded 
judgment  of  friends  or  enemies,  individuals  or  state,  public 
gossip,  the  manifest  results  of  actions  fail  to  paint  the  portrait 
in  the  tones  desired,  it  is  the  author's  privilege  to  step  forth 
from  the  background,  and  give  expression  to  his  own  estimate; 
where  dramatic  insinuation  might  go  too  far,  he  may  check  it 
in  like  manner.^ 

Of  the  latter  art  of  delineation  Tacitus  is  past  master,  rarely 
resorting  to  direct  methods.  Objective  as  we  must  term  his 
technique,  in  no  author  do  we  feel  more  subjective  force,  and 
in  spite  of  the  close  reserve  and  repression  of  personality  that 
characterizes  his  art,  we  are  always  conscious  that  it  is  the 
author's  own  deep  convictions  and  strong  judgments  to  which 
his  spell  causes  us  to  incline.^  Ammianus  adopted  for  his  work 
the  historiographical  form  of  Tacitus,  the  annalistic,  but  the 
influence  of  a  long  period  of  biography  dominated  by  rhetoric, 
together  with  the  natural  preferences  of  a  character  like  that  of 
Ammianus,  brought  about  a  method  of  characterization  in 
the  main  distinctly  antithetical  to  that  of  his  great  prototype. 

^  It  is  here  assumed  that  the  reference  in  Polybius,  although  referring  strictly  to 
the  presentation  of  historical  facts,  may  be  extended  to  include  points  of  characteri- 
zation for  individuals. 

Cf.  Bruns,  "  Personlichkeit  und  Geschichtsschreibung  d.  Gruchen,"  p.  44,  Jene 
iiber  das  Wesen  eines  Mannes  kurz  orientirenden  Worte  sind  eben  da  am  Platze,  wo 
die  indirekte  Charakteristik  sich  nicht  entfalten  kann.     Cf.  also  p.  46  if. 

^  For  all  established  principles  for  the  indirect  method,  the  chapter  on  Thucydides 
in  Bruns's  "  Literarische  Portrat  der  Gruchen,"  pp.  1-45,  must  be  considered  the 
original  source. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  5 

That  the  sources  used  by  Ammianus  were  a  potent  factor  for 
the  subjective  tone  of  his  portraiture  of  character  is  certain; 
the  elogia,  which  he  employs  to  set  the  mark  of  impressiveness 
on  a  prominent  character  at  the  close  of  a  career,  are  proof 
positive  of  what  he  owed  to  biography  and  panegyric.  Perhaps 
it  is  the  influence  of  Livy  and  Tacitus  that  causes  us  to  feel 
that  a  chronicle  should  be  outwardly  at  least  without  individu- 
ality, and  that  the  tone  of  encomiastic  biography  is  not  in 
keeping  with  the  form  of  historiography.  At  any  rate  the 
student  of  Ammianus  cannot  but  feel  inconsistencies  between 
the  annalistic  form  of  the  narrative  whose  pages  he  is  turning, 
and  the  author's  frank  revelation  of  himself  and  his  estimates 
of  the  characters  that  he  depicts.^  Ammianus,  however, 
departs  on  occasion  from  the  precepts  of  Polybius,  and  where 
this  occurs,  it  may  be  traced  as  a  rule  to  a  Tacitean  reminis- 
cence. His  delineation  in  the  main,  however,  is  free  and  open; 
there  are  few  insinuations,  no  veiled  judgments;  he  expresses 
his  thoughts  and  estimates  with  the  artlessness  of  a  child. 
We  get  a  plain  view  of  his  intended  work  in  each  case,  and 
proceed  with  him  step  by  step  as  he  investigates  and  weighs 
actions.  Tacitus,  on  the  other  hand,  gives  us  only  the  finished 
pictures;  the  causes  that  led  to  the  conception  of  that  picture 
remain  unknown  or  are  matter  of  conjecture.'^  There  is  no 
need  to  ask  in  the  case  of  Ammianus,  as  in  that  of  Tacitus, 
how  far  his  design  in  character  delineation  went,  or  whether 
these  characters  are  being  used  also  as  dramatic  illustrations 
of  times  and  situations.  We  recognize  the  fact  that  he  is 
giving  us  his  own  conception  of  each  personage,  and  his  only 
object  in  so  doing  is  to  describe  that  personage. 

A  comparison  of  parts  of  the  work  of  each  author,  dealing 
with  historical  situations  not  dissimilar,  will  best  illustrate  the 
essential  differences  above  sketched. 

'  See  Bruns's  remarks  on  this,  "  Die  Personlichkeit  in  d.  Geschichtsschreibung  d. 
Alten,"  p.  63  S. 

*  Cf.  Bruns,  "  Die  Personlichkeit  in  der  Geschichtsschreibung  der  Alten,"  p.  78  fF. 
"  Es  is  ebenso  das  Princip  des  Tacitus,  wie  es  das  des  Thukydides  war,  den  Laser  in 
seine  psychologischen  Voruntersuchungen  keinen  Einblick  thun  zu  lassen." 


O  THE    LITERARY   WORK    OF    AMMIANUS. 

The  Annals  of  Tacitus,  I  and  the  early  part  of  II,  are  devoted 
partly  to  the  campaigns  of  Germanicus  in  Germany.  The 
figure  of  Germanicus  stands  out  vividly  as  we  read,  but  no  less 
clearly  do  we  see  the  personality  of  Tiberius  in  the  background, 
and  we  feel  assured  that  this  is  what  the  author  intended. 
The  narrative  is  essentially  historical;  rarely  does  it  cross  the 
limits  of  historiography;  and  yet  the  skill  of  Tacitus  leaves  two 
brilliant  portraits,  the  successful  Caesar,  battling  abroad  for 
the  Empire,  the  jealous  Emperor  in  the  court  at  home. 

It  is  not  pressing  an  analogy  too  far  to  set  side  by  side  with 
these  passages  of  Tacitus  that  part  of  the  work  of  Ammianus 
which  contains  the  narrative  of  the  early  history  of  Julian  and 
Constantius,  Books  XV-XXI,  where  the  historical  setting  is 
very  similar,  and  the  relations  of  the  two  main  personages 
present  a  sufficiently  close  parallel.  The  portraits  drawn  by 
Ammianus  are  as  conspicuous  as  those  of  Tacitus,  and  form 
companion  pictures  for  them.  No  one  can  read  this  portion 
of  the  later  historian's  work  without  being  fully  convinced, 
in  spite  of  the  sharp  contrast  which  the  methods  of  delineation 
adopted  by  Ammianus  often  offer  to  those  of  Tacitus,  that 
here  at  least  the  earlier  author  was  the  later  author's  model. 

Before  entering  upon  a  closer  examination  of  these  passages, 
it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  consider  a  general  matter,  that  of 
fullness  of  detail.  The  narrative  covering  the  campaigns  of 
Germanicus  belongs  to  the  years  14,  15  and  16  A.  D.,  and  is 
comprised  in  about  thirty  pages  of  Teubner  text;  the  account 
of  Julian  in  Ammianus  covers  the  period  from  355-361  A.  D. 
{i.  e.,  up  to  Julian's  acclamation  as  Emperor)  and  is  included 
in  about  fifty  pages  of  the  same  reckoning.  The  difference  in 
detail  is  remarkable.  The  narrative  of  Tacitus  is  particularly 
full,  names  of  officers,  and  even  of  inferiors,  incidents  of  battle, 
the  tribes  of  the  enemy,  their  leaders,  and  many  less  prominent 
personages  being  enumerated.  In  Ammianus,  considering  the 
closer  relation  of  the  author  to  the  era  with  which  he  deals, 
we  have  much  less  detail  of  that  kind,  save  where,  mindful  of 
the  dramatic  effect  attained  by  Tacitus,  he  is  adopting,  almost 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  / 

mechanically,  the  treatment  of  his  model;  the  officers  come  in 
for  little  attention,  except  those  that  serve  as  foils  to  Julian. 
The  omission  of  such  particulars  leaves  room,  of  course,  for 
the  more  extended  characterization  of  the  leading  figure 
necessary  in  the  technique  of  Ammianus,  but  it  is  not  so  much 
this  omission  as  the  entirely  different  purpose  for  which  the 
details  given  are  apparently  utilized  that  engages  our  attention. 
In  Tacitus  they  seem  part  of  the  narrative;  in  Ammianus  there 
is  much  open  use  of  them  to  characterize  the  leading  figures. 
We  do  not  lose  sight  of  Germanicus  in  the  pages  of  Tacitus 
any  more  than  we  do  of  Julian  in  Ammianus,  but  in  the  former 
case  we  must  do  our  own  characterization  from  narrated  events 
and  facts;  Ammianus  freely  interprets  for  us,  and  assists  our 
judgment.  Yet,  when  we  reach  the  end,  the  studied  reserve 
of  the  Tacitean  method  has  marked  Germanicus  as  his  darling 
and  Tiberius  as  the  object  of  his  detestation,  as  vividly  as  the 
later  author's  frankly  encomiastic  or  critical  treatment  had 
shown  his  opinions  of  Julian  and  Constantius. 

That  Ammianus  intends  to  glorify  that  part  of  his  work  which 
relates  to  Julian  is  frankly  stated  in  the  introductory  sentence 
of  his  excursus  on  the  Gauls,  XV.  9,  i. 

Proinde    quoniam — ut    Mantuanus    vates    praedixit    excelsus — 
maius  opus  moveo,  maiorque  mihi  rerum  nascitur  ordo.  ... 
But  he  strikes  the  keynote  of  his  treatment  of  Julian  still  more 
clearly  for  us  in  XVI.  i,  2-3. 

Quia  igitur  res  magnae  quas  per  Gallias  virtute  felicitateque 
correxit,  multis  veterum  factis  fortibus  praestant,  singula  serie 
progrediente  monstrabo,  instrumenta  omnia  mediocris  ingenii,  si 
suffecerint,  commoturus.  Quicquid  autem  narrabitur,  quod  non 
falsitas  arguta  concinnat,  sed  fides  Integra  rerum  absoluit  docu- 
mentis  evidentibus  fulta,  ad  laudativampaene  materiam,  pertinebit. 

The  general  tone  of  apology  reminds  the  reader  of  the 
commonplaces  with  which  the  author  of  an  encomiastic  oration 
excuses  his  panegyric,  and  which  the  rhetoricians  enjoined  for 
works  of  laudatory  character,  to  anticipate  any  prejudicial 
feelings  that  praise  might  engender.  In  Aristides  (Sp.  II. 
506,  13)  we  have  among  the  rpoiroL  tov  firj  <f)opTiKm  iiratvetv,  one 


8  THE    LITERARY    WORK    OF    AMMIANUS. 

that  covers  this  point:  rpiTO<i  rpoiro'i  ojav  irplv  elirelv  ir  arvyvoifirjv 
€0'  ocf  av  fxeXXrjXeyetvalT'^Tat.  Another  feature  of  the  encomium 
is  found  in  the  words  "instrumenta  omnia  mediocris  ingenii, 
si  suffecerint,  commoturus."  Doxopater  lays  down  as  one  of 
the  laws  of  encomium  such  a  profession  .of  incapacity  in  com- 
parison with  the  subject  (Doxopater,  Walz.  Rh.  Gr.,  II.  449, 
33.  .  .  .  v6fio<i  eVrt  rol<i  iyKw/xid^ovai  jxei^ova  rov  oliceCov  Xoyov  Trjv 
Trpoa-KejXLevrjv  vvjoOecnv). 

But  it  is  in  the  last  phrase  of  2  that  Ammianus  most  clearly 
defines  his  method — -ad  paene  laudativam  materiam  pertinehit 
Here  we  have  complete  acknowledgment  of  his  intention,  and 
we  shall  see  that  this  purpose  is  maintained,  often  even  in 
technicalities,  throughout  his  treatment  of  Julian,  partly 
through  his  own  observance  of  rhetorical  theory,  partly  by 
reflection  of  the  biographical  and  encomiastic  sources,  on  which, 
no  less  than  on  personal  recollection,  he  based  his  representation 
of  his  favorite  Emperor. 

The  passage  given  above,  although  preparing  us  for  the 
narrative  of  Julian's  exploits,  is  not  his  first  introduction  into 
the  pages  of  Ammianus.  In  XV.  8,  5-18,  we  have  a  description 
of  his  adoption  as  Caesar  by  Constantius,  and  the  first  charac- 
terization of  him  is  found  in  the  same  passage.  This  is  one  of 
the  places  where  Ammianus,  fresh  from  preparatory  perusals 
of  his  great  model,  resorts  to  the  indirect  technique  and  uses 
it  most  skilfully.  The  scene  is  highly  dramatic,  aflPording  an 
excellent  opportunity  for  objective  characterization. 

XV.  8, 4:  Cum  venisset  accitus  praedicto  die,  advocate  omni  quod 
aderat  commilitio,  tribunali  ad  altiorem  suggestum  erecto,  quod 
aquilae  circumdederunt  et  signa,  Augustus  inscendens  eumque 
(Julian)  manu  retinens  dextra,  haec  sermone  placido  peroravit. 

Obvious  instruments  for  characterization  are  the  speech  of 
Constantius,  and  the  description  of  the  reception  of  the  new 
Caesar  by  the  soldiers,  both  of  which  Ammianus  uses.  After 
an  introductory  reference  to  the  disturbance  in  Gaul,  the 
Emperor  presents  their  future  commander  to  the  army  in  the 
following  words  (XV.  8,  8) : 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  9 

lulianum  hunc  fratrem  meum  patruelem,  ut  nostis,  verecundia, 
qua  nobis  ita  ut  necessitudine  carus  est,  recte  spectatum  iamque 
elucentis  industriae  iuvenem  in  Caesaris  adhibere  potestatem 
exopto,  coeptis,  si  videntur  utilia,  etiam  vestra  consensione  fir- 
mandis. 

The  last  clause  is  the  cue  for  interruption  by  the  soldiers,  given 
in  the  following  paragraph  (XV.  8,  9) : 

Dicere  super  his  plura  conantem  interpellans  contio  lenius  pro- 
hibebat,  arbitrium  summi  numinis  id  esse,  non  mentis  humanae, 
velut  praescia  venturi  praedicans. 

This  is  acknowledged  and  interpreted  by  the  Emperor  with 
further  characterizing  phrases  (XV.  8,  10) : 

Quia  igitur  vestrum  quoque  favorem  adesse  fremitus  indicat 
laetus,  adulescens  vigoris  tranquilli,  cuius  temperati  mores  imitandi 
sunt  potius  quam  praedicandi  ad  honorem  prosperatum  exsurgat: 
cuius  praeclaram  indolem  bonis  artibus  institutam  hoc  ipso  plene 
videor  exposuisse  quod  elegi. 

After  the  formal  assumption  of  the  insignia  of  Caesar,  during 
which  the  soldiers  show  further  approval  {cum  exercitus 
gaudio),  Constantius  concludes  his  speech  with  a  conventional 
exhortation  to  the  future  commander.  A  flattering  burst  of 
applause  from  the  contio  completes  this  bit  of  historical  drama 
(XV.  8,  15): 

Nemo  post  haec  finita  reticuit  sed  mihtares  omnes  horrendo 
fragore  scuta  genibus  inlidentes — quod  est  prosperitatis  indicium 
plenum,  .  .  .  — immane  quo  quantoque  gaudio  praeter  paucos 
Augusti  probavere  iudicium  Caesaremque  admiratione  digna  sus- 
cipiebant  imperatoris  muricis  fulgore  flagrantem. 

It  is  readily  seen  that  the  speech  of  Constantius,  although 
serving  the  usual  purposes  of  a  speech  in  historiography,  that 
of  adding  to  the  dramatic  effect  and  placing  the  situation  in 
summary,  is  here  utilized  also  for  laudatory  ends.  The  praise 
bestowed  on  Julian  follows  the  rhetorical  formulae  for  enco- 
mium. We  have  his  mores  (verecundia,  XV.  8,  8;  temperati 
mores;  praeclaram  indolem,    10),   his  bodily  powers   (vigoris 


lO  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

tranqullli,  lo),  his  iraChevaL';  (bonis  artibus  institutam,  lo) ; 
and  the  phrase  "imitandi  sunt  potius  quam  praedicandi'^ 
might  have  been  culled  from  a  panegyric.  An  admirable 
instance  of  the  indirect  technique  is  found  in  the  words  con- 
tractiore  vultu  suhmaestum  used  to  characterize  Julian  during 
the  ceremony.  In  Tacitean  fashion  the  reader  is  left  to  inter- 
pret this  for  himself;  but  the  conclusion  is  obvious.  These  words 
contain  a  tribute  to  the  "^/^y^??  of  Julian,  which  disdained  the 
honors  of  a  throne  in  comparison  with  higher  things,  and  are 
directly  in  keeping  with  the  glimpses  of  his  character  revealed 
by  the  Emperor's  speech.^ 

A  more  open  touch  of  personal  praise  is  added  in  XV.  8,  i6, 
where  the  soldiers  scrutinize  more  closely  their  new  com- 
mander: 

cuius  oculos  cum  venustate  terribiles  vultumque  excitantius 
gratum  diu  multumque  contuentes,  qui  futurus  sit,  coUigebant, 
velut  scrutatis  veteribus  libris,  quorum  lectio  per  corporum  signa 
pandit  animorum  interna. 

Julian's  progress  through  Vienna  (XV.  8,  21-22)  gives  further 
opportunity  for  indirect  praise,  in  the  description  of  the 
flattering  reception  given  him  by  the  populace.  The  praise 
is  of  the  most  exaggerated  kind  (salutarem  quendam  genium 
adfulsisse)  and  there  are  traces  of  the  rhetorical  ai/f/^cri?,^  so 
common  in  encomium.  The  omen  for  future  greatness,  which 
appeared  generally  in  the  'yeveaisP  of  the  encomium,  is  intro- 
duced in  22,  presaging  preeminence  for  Julian  at  the  entrance 
into  his  new  life. 

XV.  8,  21:  Cumque  Viennam  venisset,  ingredientem  optatum 
quidem   et  impetrabilem   honorifice   susceptura   omnis   aetas   con- 

^  We  feel  a  continuance  of  this  in  XV.  8,  17,  where  the  newly  chosen  Caesar  is  borne 
to  the  palace  muttering  a  line  from  Homer:  susceptus  denique  ad  consessum  vehiculi, 
receptusque  in  regiam,  hunc  versum  ex  Homerico  carmine  susurrabat,  ?XXa/3e 
irop<p6p€os  ddvaros  Kal  /xocpa  Kparaii).  This  is  a  note  in  the  biographical  manner,  an 
echo  of  Suetonius. 

*  Aristides,  Sp.  II.  505,  10.  Xanpdvovrai  Si  ol  iiraivoi  koto,  rpdirovs  recrcropas 
ai^riffei,  irapaX^ixf/ei,  irapa^oKrj,  eixprifda, 

'  Hermog.,  Sp.  II.  12,  8.  ipers  S4  ripa  (cat  &  wepl  ttjv  fiveaiv  avviireaev  A|ia 
daipxiTOi  olov  i^  dveipdruv  fi  ff/jLV^dXuv  if  tivwp  Tovoirov.  Cf.  Nich.  Soph.,  Sp.  III.  480, 
31  ff.;  Menand.,  Sp.  III.  371,  3  ff.;  Quint.,  III.  7,  11. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  II 

currebat,  et  dignitas  proculque  visum  plebs  universa  cum  viclnitate 
finitima,  imperatorem  clementem  appellans  et  faustum,  praevia 
consonis  laudibus  celebrabat,  avidius  pompam  regiam  in  principe 
legitime  cernens;  communiumque  remedium  aerumnarum  in  eius 
locabat  adventu,  salutarem  quendam  genium  adfulsiss'e  conclamatis 
negotiis  arbitrata. 

22.  Tunc  anus  quaedam  orba  luminibus  cum  percontando  quinam 
esset  ingressus,  lulianum  Caesarem  comperisset,  exclamavit,  hunc 
deorum  templa  reparaturum. 

In  the  following  book  (XVI),  Ammianus  lays  aside  all 
attempt  at  continuing  the  indirect  technique,  and  employs  the 
most  openly  encomiastic  style,  as  formulated  by  rhetoricians, 
preparing  the  reader  for  such  a  step  by  the  words  "ad  lauda- 
tivam  paene  materiam  pertinebit,"  already  quoted.  This 
passage  comprises  XVI.  i ;  4,  5,  and  its  quotation  will  best 
serve  to  illustrate  the  point  of  open  laudation  (XVI.  I ;  4,  5) : 

4.  Videtur  enim  lex  quaedam  vitae  melioris  hunc  iuvenem  a 
nobilibus  cunis  ad  usque  spiritum  comitata  supremum.  Namque 
incrementis  velocibus  ita  domi  forisque  conluxit  ut  prudentia  Titus 
alter  aestimaretur,  bellorum  gloriosis  cursibus  Traiani  simillimus, 
clemens  ut  Antoninus,  rectae  perfectaeque  rationis  indagine  con- 
gruens  Marco,  ad  cuius  aemulationem  actus  suos  effingebat  et  mores. 
5.  Et  quoniam,  ut  Tulliana  docet  auctoritas,  omnium  magnarum 
artium  sicut  arborum  altitudo  nos  delectat,  radices  stirpesque  non 
item,  sic  praeclarae  huius  indolis  rudimenta  tunc  multis  obnubi- 
lantibus  tegebantur,  quae  anteferri  gestis  eius  postea  multis  et 
miris  hac  ratione  deberent,  quod  adulescens  primaeuus  ut  Erech- 
theus  in  secessu  Minervae  nutritus  ex  academiae  quietis  umbraculis 
non  e  militari  tabernaculo  in  pulverem  Martium  tractus,  strata 
Germania,  pacatisque  rigentis  Rheni  meatibus,  cruenta  spirantium 
regum  hie  sanguinem  fudit,  alibi  manus  catenis  adflixit. 

Although  the  whole  passage  is  in  a  high  strain  of  praise,  the 
most  strongly  rhetorical  touch  is  in  the  accumulation  of 
comparisons  in  4  with  Titus,  Trajan,  Antoninus  Pius  and 
Marcus  Aurelius.  This  a-vyKpta-i^,  which  is  here  of  a  formal 
character,  was  a  marked  feature  of  the  encomium.^ 

*  Hermog.,  Sp.  II.  13,  3.  /jxylffrt]  Si  iv  rots  iyKUfilois  i<l>opn^  ij  dirb  tQv  ffvyKplffeuv, 
1}v  T(i|«j  us  Av  6  Kaipbs  ixpriyijr ai. 


12  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS, 

This  is  a  detailed  example  of  the  avyKptcn^  /MepiK'q,  likening 
the  compared  characters  in  one  single  point.^ 

Another  example  of  this  figure  may  be  noted  in  5,  in  the  words 
"non  e  militari  tabernaculo  in  pulverem  Martium  tractus." 
Here  the  comparison  is  implied,  and  the  reader  feels  the  "ut 
alii,"  to  be  supplied  after  non.  The  negative  adverb  marks 
another  rhetorical  device,  ai/ai/oeo-t9,  frequently  employed  in  a 
syncritical  passage,  and  mentioned  by  Hermog.  (Sp.  II.  307)^" 
as  an  instrument  of  the  grand  (a-efivof)  style.  The  words  in  5, 
multis  obnubilantibus  tegebantur,  may  be  interpreted  in  close 
relation  to  the  last  figure  named,  serving  to  paint  a  background 
of  obstacles  which  will  enhance  Julian's  later  glory;  we  might 
also  consider  them  as  a  light  \v<tk  of  possible  criticism  of  the 
Caesar's  early  inert  life.  Such  explanations  were  allowed  by 
rhetoricians  to  encomiasts. ^^  The  highly  rhetorical  exaggeration 
of  the  closing  words  of  this  passage  also  forms  part  of  the 
encomiastic  treatment  (strata  Germania,  pacatisque  rigentis 
Rheni  meatihus  cruenta  spirantium  re  gum  hie  sanguniem  fudit, 
alibi  manus  catenis  adflixit). 

XVI.  2,  2  continues  in  the  same  tone;  the  background  of 
difficult  circumstances  is  deepened  by  the  words,  "ancillari 
adulatione  posthabita,  qua  eum  proximi  ad  amoenitatem 
flectebant  et  luxum,"  picturing  the  allurements  to  luxury  to 
heighten  the  virtue  of  temperance  that  resists  them,  and  the 
phrase  "velut  dux  diuturnus"  is  conspicuous  praise  for  a 
young  and  inexperienced  leader.  In  4,  5,  6,  our  attention  is 
called  to  his  bravery  and  ardor  (fidentius  Caesar  audaciam 
viri  fortis  imitari  magnopere  nitebatur).  His  strategic  skill  is 
proved  in  7,  and  the  result  is  pointed  out  (proinde  certiore 
spe  .  .  .  venit  Tricasas  adeo  insperatus  ut  eo  portas  paene 
pulsante    diffusae   multitudinis    barbarae    metu    aditus    urbis 

^  Menand.,  Sp.  III.  377,  5.  dXX'  iKeivai,  (ffvyKpiffeis)  fUv^ffov  rai/j^piKdi^otov  iraiSiias 
Taidelav  ij  ffu<l>poffiv7]s  -irpbs  aw<l>po<iivi)v. 

10  X/^eis  bi  Xa/JLirpdi.  alVep  iXiyovro  elvai  Kal  (re/ivdi.  Cf.  Nich.  Soph.,  Sp.  III.  487,  32 
ff.,  on  ff&yKpiais:  <}>p6.aiv  5k  bpjoiwt  k  avradda  irofiiriKTjv  Kal  dearpiK^v  elvai  tov  ceixvov. 

^^  Nich.  Soph.,  Sp.  III.  482,  II  ff.  T&s  Xi;<r«x  iird^o/xev  icrxi'/wT^pas  iva  vavraxbOev 
ri  T^j  dvirdiffeu^  /3Xd)3os  Xi/ijTai. 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  I3 

non  sine  anxia  panderetur  ambage).  The  next  personal 
note  is  in  ii:  "hinc  deinde  nee  itinera  nee  flumina  transire 
posse  sine  insidiis  putans  erat  providus  et  cunctator,  quod 
praecipium  bonum  in  magnis  ductoribus  opem  ferre  solet 
exercitibus  et  salutem,"  the  side  remark  giving  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  action. 

XVI.  3,  3,  after  some  annalistic  details  in  i,  2,  resumes  the 
characterization,  illustrating  the  efficiency  of  the  young 
general,  with  a  world  of  wars  upon  his  shoulders,  "ubi  bellorum 
inundantium  molem  humeris  suis  quod  dicitur  vehens  scinde- 
batur  in  multiplices  curas,  ut  milites  qui  a  solitis  descivere  prae- 
sidiis  reducerentur  ad  loca  suspecta,  et  conspiratas  gentes  in 
noxam  Romani  nominis  disiectaret  ac  provideret,  ne  alimenta 
deessent  exercitui  per  varia  discursuro."  The  generalities 
employed  here  are  such  as  encomiastic  biography  could  supply. 
XVI.  4,  4  prepares  the  way  for  further  eulogistic  writing: 
^' efficacissimus  Caesar  providebat  constanti  sollicitudine  ut 
militum  diuturno  labori  quies  succederet  aliqua  licet  brevis. 
...  5.  verum  hoc  quoque  diligentia  curato  pervigili,  adfusa 
laetiore  spe  prosperorum,  sublato  animo  ad  exsequenda 
plurima  consurgebat." 

The  ensuing  description  of  Julian  in  camp  and  civil  life  is  a 
real  bit  of  encomiastic  biography,  resting  upon  an  account  of 
the  Caesar's  moderation  and  his  care  for  the  soldiers,  ^ox^poavvr}^ 
it  will  be  remembered,  was  one  of  the  four  cardinal  virtues, 
under  which  the  encomiastic  writer  classed  the  rrpd^u<i  of 
his  subject.  Julian  maintained  this  temperance,  as  Ammianus 
makes  us  clearly  understand,  in  spite  of  manifold  inducements 
to  the  contrary. 

XVI.  5,   I.     temperantiam  ipse  sibi  indixit  atque  retinuit. 

XVI.  5,  3.  Denique  cum  legeret  libellum  assidue,  quem  Con- 
stantius  ut  privignum  ad  studia  mittens,  manu  sua  conscripserat, 
praelicenter  disponens,  quid  in  convivio  Caesaris  impend!  deberet: 
phasianum,  et  vulvam  et  sumen  exigi  vetuit  et  inferri,  munificis 
militis  vili  et  fortuito  cibo  contentus. 

The  deeds  that  are  enumerated  under  this  head  (3)  show  an 


14  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF  AMMIANUS. 

underlying  moral  purpose  {'jrpoaipea-i';)^  again  a  rhetorical 
point.^^  After  this  come  his  pursuits  and  studies,  divided  under 
the  heads  of  night  and  day  (XVI.  5,  4-8;  9).  The  former 
correspond  to  the  eTrizrjBev/xaTa  of  the  rhetorician,  in  its 
highest  sense,  as  given  by  Menand.,  Sp.  III.  372,  3, 
€7riTr]SevfiaTa  S'  iarlv  dvev  ajcavcov  7r/oa|et9  ■^diKUL.  These 
especially  indicate  character,  as  they  imply  choice.  Under 
this  head  we  hear  of  Julian's  diligent  application  to  study  and 
statesmanship. 

XVI.  5,  4.  Hoc  contingebat  ut  noctes  ad  officia  divideret 
tripertita,  quietis  et  publicae  rei  et  musarum. 

In  this  we  meet  again  a  a-vyKpiai<i  with  Alexander  the  Great, 
strongly  balanced  in  favor  of  Julian. 

4,  5.  quid  factitasse  Alexandrum  legimus  Magnum;  sed  multo 
hie  fortius.  Ille  namque  aenea  concha  supposita  brachio  extra 
cubile  protento  pilam  tenebat  argenteam,  ut  cum  nervorum  vigorem 
sopor  laxasset,  infusus,  gestaminis  lapsi  tinnitus  abrumperet  som- 
num.  (5)  lulianum  vero  absque  instrumento  quotiens  voluit, 
evigilavit  et  nocte  dimidiata  semper  exsurgens,  non  e  plumis  vel 
stragulis  sericis  ambiguo  fulgore  nitentibus  sed  ex  tapete  et  (navpa. 

Conspicuous  here  too  is  the  avaipeai<;  {non  e  plumis,  etc.)  in 
combination  with  the  figure  of  comparison.  We  learn  in  the 
following  paragraphs  (5,  6,  7,  8)  of  Julian's  devotion  to  poetry, 
philosophy,  theology,  oratory  and  history;  of  his  acquaintance 
with  Greek  and  Latin.  The  closing  sentence  in  8  openly  avows 
the  intention  to  characterize  in  enumerating  his  pursuits; 
"et  haec  quidem  pudicitiae  virtutumque  sunt  signa  nocturna." 
Julian's  justice  and  ability  in  civil  life  are  characterized  in 
10-15,  to  which  9  forms  a  rhetorical  transition,  filled  with 
epithets  of  encomiastic  nature. 

XVI.  5,  9.  Diebus  vero  quae  ornate  dixerit  tt  facete,  quaeve  in 
apparatu  vel  in  ipsis  congressibus  proeliorum,  aut  in  re  civili  mag- 
nanimitate  correxit  et  liberalitate,  suo  quaeque  loco  demonstra- 
buntur. 

^^  Arist.  Rhet.,  I.  9,  32.  iirh  d'  iK  tQv  irpd^ewv  6  ^iraivos  .  .  .  ireipar^ov  deiKvivai 
Trpdrrovra  /card  irpoalpeaiv  .   .  .  t6,  S'  tpya  (TTjpjeia.  ttjs  ?|ews  iarlv. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  1 5 

We  may  distinguish  in  this  the  grouping  of  the  irpd^ei^  under 
the  divisions  of  war  (in  ipsis  congressibus  proeliorum)  and 
peace  (in  re  civili),  which  corresponds  to  the  manner  of  enco- 
mium,^^  and  was  adopted  Into  biography.  A  purely  biograph- 
ical feature  is  here  introduced,  that  of  the  airo^de^fiara. 

10.  When  confronted  with  the  difficulties  of  initiation  into 
military  drill,  he  utters  "vetus  illud  proverbium  clitellae  bovi 
sunt  impositae;  plane  non  est  nostrum  onus." 

11.  et  imperator  "rapere"  inquit,  "non  accipere  sciunt 
agentes  in  rebus." 

12.  "'incusent'  iura  clementiam,  sed  imperatorem  mitissimi 
animi  legibus  praestare  sevens  decet." 

Such  is  the  characterization  of  Julian  in  some  ten  pages  of 
Ammianus,  after  the  first  appearance  of  his  hero  Emperor  upon 
the  scene  as  Caesar. 

We  shall  now  turn  to  the  portion  of  the  Annals  where 
Germanicus  is  portrayed  under  not  unlike  conditions.  We 
shall  find  very  little  of  the  presence  of  the  author's  personality 
that  marks  the  writing  of  Ammianus.  The  author's  comments 
are  so  rare  that  their  presence  is  always  a  surprise.  We  get 
our  first  glimpse  of  Germanicus  in  the  historian's  most  objective 
fashion,  through  the  medium  of  the  thoughts  of  Tiberius,  one 
of  whose  chief  causes  for  apprehension  at  the  death  of  Augustus 
was  (Ann.,  I.  7)  "ne  Germanicus,  in  cuius  manu  tot  legiones, 
immensa  sociorum  auxilia,  mirus  apud  populum  favor,  habere 
imperium  quam  exspectare  mallet."  There  is  no  characteri- 
zation of  Germanicus  here — simply  a  background  of  "mirus 
apud  populum  favor"  to  make  us  desirous  to  know  more  of 
this  people's  darling.  In  chapter  31,  we  learn  also  that  the 
hopes  of  the  German  legions  turned  toward  Germanicus, 
"magna  spe  fore  ut  Germanicus  Caesar  imperium  alterius  pati 
nequiret,  daret  se  legionibus  vi  sua  cuncta  tracturis,"  a  touch 
that,  like  the  first  reference,  stimulates  interest  in  Germanicus. 
In  chapter  33  we  have  at  the  actual  introduction  of  Germanicus 

"  TttS  Toiairros  Toiivv  Siaip-fiffets  vpd^eis  Slxa  eis  re  rk  Kar  elp'^vqv  Kal  ra  Karb. 
ir6\efju)v.     Menand.,  Sp.  II.  372,  25  fF. 


l6  THE    LITERARY   WORK    OF   AMMIANUS. 

a  short  7eW  (ipse  Druso  fratre  Tiberil  genitus,  Augustae  nepos, 
sed  anxius  occultis  in  se  patrui  aviaeque  odiis,  quorum  causae 
acriores,  quia  iniquae  .  .  .  credebaturque  si  rerum  potitus 
foret  libertatem  redditurus;  unde  in  Germanicum  favor  et  spes 
eadem).  His  marriage  to  Agrippina  is  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding sentence.  There  is  nothing  so  far  beyond  the  briefest 
relation  of  facts  necessary  for  historiography,  including  the 
popular  belief  upon  which  rested  the  "favor  et  spes."  In  the 
next  sentence  we  come  upon  a  really  subjective  touch:  "nam 
iuveni  civile  ingenium,  mira  comitas,  et  diversa  ab  Tiberii 
sermone,  vultu,  adrogantibus  et  obscuris."  A  personal  com- 
ment seems  almost  necessary  here,  and  even  the  most  reserved 
of  historians  could  not  avoid  it,  especially  when  it  could  carry 
with  it  a  fling  at  Tiberius. 

The  opening  words  of  chapter  34  convey  an  impression  of 
Germanicus  in  a  generous  light;  "sed  Germanicus  quanto 
summae  spei  propior,  tanto  impensius  pro  Tiberio  niti,"  but 
the  historian  does  not  comment  even  with  an  adjective. 
In  the  dramatic  events  that  follow,  Germanicus,  although 
present  to  our  minds  throughout,  does  not  claim  the  main  share 
of  attention;  when  we  recall  the  scene  to  our  imagination,  it  is 
a  mutinous  camp  that  we  see,  and  this  is  indisputably  what  the 
historian  intended,  and  what  the  technique  of  historiography 
demanded.  This  scene,  however,  can  be  best  compared  with 
a  portion  of  Ammianus  upon  which  we  have  not  yet  touched. 
It  will  be  dwelt  upon  in  detail  hereafter.  All  that  is  insisted 
upon  here  is,  that  where  Tacitus  had  an  opportunity  openly  to 
make  Germanicus  conspicuous,  he  refrained  from  so  doing  and 
subserved  the  purposes  of  history.  A  general  comparison 
might  be  instituted  between  this  scene  in  the  Annals  and  the 
coronation  scene  in  Ammianus:  in  the  one  all  present  are  actors 
in  the  scene;  in  the  other  all  are  mere  supernumeraries,  with 
the  exception  of  the  central  figure,  the  Caesar  in  his  imperial 
robes.  Chapter  36,  which  might  have  given  scope  for  enlarging 
upon  the  general's  wise  policy,  opens  with  a  purely  impersonal 
line,  "consultatum  ibi  de  remedio,"  and  we  have  no  mention 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF    AMMIANUS.  IJ 

of  any  conspicuous  part  played  by  Germanicus  In  the  matter. 
In  the  ensuing  chapters,  the  narrative  is  absolutely  colorless, 
not  a  single  epithet  of  any  kind  being  applied  to  Germanicus, 
nor  is  the  slightest  suggestion  of  interpretation  of  his  actions 
to  be  discovered,  even  his  speeches  being  devoid  of  all  charac- 
terizing qualities. 

When  we  reach  chapter  51,  we  come  upon  a  touch  which, 
interpreted  by  the  rules  of  rhetoric,  is  encomiastic: 

excivit  ea  caedes  Bruderos,  Tubantes,  Usipites,  saltusque,  per  quos 
exercitui  regressus,  insedere.  Quod  gnarum  duci  incessitque 
itineri  et  proelio. 

This  may  be  taken  as  a  result  of  the  leader's  remarkable 
sagacity,  and  in  the  encomium  would  be  classed  under  the 
virtue  <f)p6vT]<n<;.  Later  in  the  chapter  comes  another  sentence 
also  capable  of  such  interpretation, 

turbabanturque  densis  Germanorum  catervis  leves  cohortes,  cum 
Caesar  advectus  ad  vicensimanos  voce  magna  hoc  illud  tempus 
obliterandae  seditionis  clamitabat. 

In  the  succeeding  chapter,  52,  the  phrase  "bellicaque 
Germanici  gloria"  may  be  construed  into  a  recognition  by  the 
author  of  the  Caesar's  exploits.  A  very  slight  tone  of  comment 
may  also  be  inferred  in  58,  "dementi  responso."  Chapters 
61  and  62  are  doubtless  intended  to  present  forcefully  the 
pious  and  patriotic  attitude  of  Germanicus  in  rendering  the 
last  rites  to  Varus  and  his  army,  but  the  author  places  the 
narrative  before  us  without  a  comment;  it  Is  left  to  us  to  read 
into  the  lines  a  tribute  to  the  "pietas"  of  Germanicus,  unless 
the  adjective  "gratlsslmo"  in  62,  characterizing  the  action  of 
the  general  as  he  places  the  first  sod,  is  a  personal  note.  But 
the  attitude  of  the  whole  army  (61),  "permoto  ad  miserationem 
omni  qui  aderat  exercitu  ob  propinquos,  amicos  denlque  ob 
casus  bellorum  et  sortem  hominum,"  and  the  mention  of 
Germanicus  In  62  as  "soclus"  makes  him  merely  an  actor  In 
the  scene,  and  important  only  through  his  position  as  general. 

The  next  passage  from  which  we  deduce  any  characterization 
of  Germanicus  is  I.  71,  where,  after  the  great  loss  In  battle,  the 


lO  THE    LITERARY   WORK    OF   AMMIANUS. 

conduct  of  the  leader  is   narrated,   evidently  to  impress  his 
humanity  and  thoughtful  care  {(^iXavOpoDiria). 

Germanicus  .  .  .  propria  pecunia  militem  iuvit.  Utque  cladis 
memoriam  etiam  comitate  leniret,  circumire  saucios,  facta  singu- 
lorum  extollere;  vulnera  intuens,  alium  spe,  alium  gloria,  cunctos 
adloquio  et  cura  sibique  et  proelio  firmabat. 

It  is  in  Book  II,  chapters  12,  13,  that  Tacitus  gives  us  the 
most  interesting  and  impressive  part  of  his  delineation  of 
Germanicus.  A  most  advantageous  point  for  the  characteri- 
zation of  a  general  is  immediately  before  or  after  a  battle. 
Tacitus  has  already  availed  himself  of  the  latter  opportunity 
in  I.  5;  here  in  Book  II  we  find  the  former.  This  is  perhaps  as 
striking  an  example  as  can  be  presented  of  the  Tacitean 
resources  for  characterization  without  laying  aside  the  author's 
mask.  Rumors  and  references  to  the  Roman  people's  love 
for  Germanicus  have  marked  him  for  the  reader  with  the  stamp 
of  popularity;  but  Germanicus  is  at  this  moment  far  from  the 
Roman  people,  and  characterization,  unless  subjective,  must 
come  through  the  army.  Never  did  dramatist  resort  to  a 
more  unique  device  than  Tacitus  has  employed  on  this  occa- 
sion.^^  We  see  Germanicus,  in  his  anxiety  to  learn  the  feelings 
of  his  men  with  regard  to  the  coming  conflict,  steal  forth  under 
cover  of  darkness  and  in  fantastic  disguise  (per  occulta  et 
vigilibus  ignara,  comite  uno,  contectus  umeros  ferima  pelle), 
to  try  the  disposition  of  the  unwitting  soldiers  as  shown  in  free 
converse  with  one  another  (II.  12,  penitus  noscendae  mentes 
cum  secreti  et  incustoditi  inter  militaris  cibos  spem  aut  metum 
proferrent).^^     Incidentally  he  enjoys  the  privilege  not  usual 

"  The  force  of  this  passage  for  characterization  has  been  most  fully  recognized  by 
those  interested  in  points  of  technique.  Cf.  Bruns,  "  Die  Personlichkeit  in  der  Ge- 
schichtsschreibung  der  Alten,"  p.  72;  Hendrickson,  "  Proconsulate  of  Julius  Agricola," 
p.  21. 

"  Ammianus  (XIV.  i,  9)  represents  Gallus  (and  by  implication  Gallienus)  resorting 
to  a  similar  but  more  direct  expedient  to  learn  the  estimation  in  which  he  was  held : 
novo  denique  perniciosoque  exemplo  idem  Gallus  ausus  est  inire  flagitium  grave,  quod 
Romae  cum  multo  dedecore  temptasse  aliquando  dicitur  Gallienus,  et  adhibitis  paucis 
clam  ferro  succinctis  vesperi  per  tabernas  palabantur  et  compita,  quaeritando  Graeco 
sermone  cuius  erat  impedio  gnarus,  quid  de  Caesare  quis  que  sentiret.  Both  motive 
and  result,  we  may  conclude,  were  different  from  those  of  the  quest  of  Germanicus. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  I9 

for  eavesdroppers  (frulturque  fama  sui,  cum  hie  nobilitatem 
duels,  decorem  alius,  plurimi  patientiam,  comitatem,  per 
seria  per  iocos  eundem  animum  laudibus  ferrent,  redden- 
damque  gratiam  in  aeie  faterentur).  The  most  open  praise 
could  not  more  plainly  convey  to  us  the  author's  judgment  of 
Germanicus  than  these  few  lines,  couched  in  purely  objective 
form. 

The  ensuing  chapter  contains  the  general's  speech  before 
the  battle,  given  with  suggestions  of  praise  (11.  14:  vocat 
contionem  et  quae  sapientia  provisa  aptaque  imminenti  pugnae 
disserit.     Cf.  I.  15,  orationem  ducis  secutus  militum  ardor). 

In  II.  20,  we  find  a  rhetorically  encomiastic  touch  such  as 
has  been  noticed  in  I.  51  (quod  gnarum  duci).  Here  the 
expression  has  a  wider  scope  (II.  20:  Nihil  ex  his  Caesari 
incognitum;  consilia  locos  prompta  occulta  noverat  astusque 
hostium  in  perniciem  ipsis  vertebat),  and  the  intent  to  glorify 
Germanicus  as  a  leader  is  more  strongly  felt  by  the  reader. 
Still  the  author  does  not  betray  himself  by  any  epithet  or 
phrase  such  as  Ammianus  uses  under  like  circumstances  (XVI. 
2,  II:  erat  providus  et  cunctator  quod  praecipium  honum  in 
magnis  ductoribus  opem  ferre  solet  exercitibus  et  salutem).  In 
the  same  chapter,  "primus  Caesar  cum  praetoriis  cohortibus 
capto  vallo  dedit  impetum  in  silvas"  may  emphasize  for  the 
reader  the  avhpua  of  Germanicus,  and  we  are  arrested  in  the 
next  chapter  (21)  by  the  same  strain;  after  openly  acknowl- 
edging the  bravery  (virtus)  of  the  leaders  of  the  Germans, 
Arminius  and  Inguiomerus,  Tacitus  adds,  "et  Germanicus,  quo 
magis  agnosceretur,  detraxerat  tegimen  capiti."  The  inference 
of  the  juxtaposition  is  not  difficult. 

In  chapter  22  the  modest  reticence  of  Germanicus  in  setting 
up  the  commemoration  of  his  triumph  (superbus  titulus)  is  to 
be  divined  from  the  brief  clause,  "de  se  nihil  addidit,"  where 
Ammianus  would  have  added  some  such  characterizing  phrase 
as  "modestissimus  Caesar."  Tacitus  proceeds  to  psychological 
analysis  of  the  springs  of  the  action,  "metu  invidiae  an  ratus 
conscientiam  facti  satis  esse."     In  suggesting  the  two  reasons, 


20  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

he  serves  a  double  purpose:  he  preserves  the  historic  balance 
■  of  impartial  narrative  and  does  not  commit  himself  to  either. 
It  is  not  difficult,  however,  to  decide  whether  the  slur  on 
Tiberius  or  the  tribute  to  Germanicus  is  to  be  accepted  as  the 
author's  choice. ^^ 

In  chapters  24  and  25,  the  historical  narrative  serves  also  to 
depict  the  difficulties,  in  order  to  give  introduction  with  greater 
force  to  "eo  promptior  Caesor  pergit  introrsus,"  illustrating  the 
persevering  bravery  of  Germanicus.  Meanwhile,  in  24,  bare 
as  is  the  recital  of  the  facts,  we  feel  called  upon  to  admire  his 
tender  humanity  and  distress  at  the  loss  at  sea,  "sola  Germanici 
triremis  Chaucorum  terram  adpulit;  quem  per  omnes  illos 
dies  noctesque  apud  scopulos  et  prominentes  oras,  cum  se 
tanti  exitii  reum  clamitaret,  vix  cohibuere  amici  quominus 
eodem  mare  oppeteret."  In  chapter  26,  "addidit  muni- 
ficentiam  Caesar,  quantum  quis  damni  professus  erat,  exsol- 
vendo,"  almost  directly  refers  to  the  generosity  of  the  Caesar. 
A  look  at  his  campaigns  in  summary,  and  a  statement  of  the 
prospects  of  the  war,  follows  in  the  next  sentence,  in  indirect 
technique,  depending  on  "nee  dubium  habebatur."  The 
enemy  are  about  to  ask  for  terms  (labare  hostes  petendaeque 
pacis  consilia  sumere);  another  year  would  fill  the  cup  of 
successes  to  the  brim  (si  proxima  aetas  adiceretur,  posse 
bellum  patrari).  The  consummate  skill  of  the  historian 
presents  Germanicus  in  this  sentence  in  a  position,  at  the  end 
of  his  campaign  in  Germany,  of  assured  success,  and  at  the 
same  time,  by  adding  the  second  clause  (si  proxima,  etc.), 
renders  that  position  impregnable  for  the  future.  It  prepares 
us  for  and  anticipates  the  recall  by  Tiberius,  which  immediately 
follows.  In  the  full  glory  of  this  position  too,  at  the  acme  of 
popularity,  with  a  victorious  army  at  his  beck,  how  can  we  but 
admire  Germanicus,  when  we  see  him  so  magnanimously 
obeying  the  Emperor's  decree  (haud  cunctatus  ultra  Germani- 

18  Bruns  suggests  a  possible  stylistic  reason  for  the  presentation  of  double  motives 
by  Tacitus  ("Die  Personlichkeit  in  d.  Geschichtsschreibung  d.  Alten,"  p.  79):  "das 
die  unfehlbare  Sicherheit,  mit  der  die  Grundlinien  gezogen  sind,  noch  starker  hervor- 
treten  lassen  soil." 


THE    LITERARY    WORK    OF   AMMIANUS.  21 

cus,  quamquam  iingi  ea,  seque  per  invidiam  parto  iam  decore 
abstrahi  intellegeret). 

The  triumph  of  Germanicus  in  II.  41  closes  the  account  of 
his  career  in  Germany.  After  a  brief  enumeration  of  the 
spoils,  follow  these  sentences: 

Augebat  intuentium  visus  eximia  ipsius  species  currusque, 
quinque  liberis  onustus.  Sed  suberat  occulta  formido,  reputantibus 
haud  prosperum  in  Druso  patre  eius  favorem  vulgi,  avunculum 
eiusdem  Marcellum  flangrantibus  plebis  studiis  intra  iuventam 
ereptum,  breves  et  infaustos  populi  Romani  amores. 

A  note  of  open  admiration  is  found  in  "eximia  ipsius  species," 
but  in  the  following  words,  the  reference  to  the  "favorem 
vulgi"  of  Drusus,  the  "breves  et  infaustos  populi  Romani 
amores,"  speak  volumes  for  the  light  in  which  Tacitus  wishes 
us  to  believe  that  Germanicus  was  regarded  by  the  people; 
dramatically  they  serve  also  to  shadow  forth  his  tragic  fate. 

Let  us  now  consider  parts  of  the  story  of  Germanicus  which 
have  been  designedly  omitted  in  the  foregoing  pages. 

The  revolt  of  the  Germanic  legions  described  in  Annals,  I. 
31  ff.,  is  an  intrinsic  part  of  the  history  of  the  period.  Its 
recital  follows  naturally  on  that  of  a  similar  movement  among 
the  forces  in  Pannonia.  No  historical  treatment  of  the  events 
consequent  on  the  death  of  Augustus  would  be  complete  with- 
out accounts  of  these  mutinies.  The  introduction,  therefore, 
of  careful  descriptions  of  these  uprisings  in  the  Annals,  with 
their  bearing  on  the  disposition  and  political  status  of  the 
army,  is  the  duty  of  the  historian.  Very  simple  and  har- 
monious is  the  transition  from  the  situation  at  Rome  to  that  of 
the  army  in  these  important  provinces  (Ann.,  I.  16,  i :  Hie 
rerum  urbanarum  status  erat,  cum  Pannonicas  legiones  seditio 
incessit).  All  the  following  passage  through  chapter  30  is 
devoted  to  the  mutiny  specified  in  this  introductory  sentence. 
The  contemporary  disturbance  among  the  German  legions  is 
taken  up  in  chapter  31,  and,  with  the  exception  of  chapter  33, 
which  introduces  Germanicus  as  an  important  historical  figure 


22  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

apart  from  any  relation  to  the  mutinous  army,  and  chapters 
46  and  47,  which  throw  sidelights  on  the  feeling  caused  at 
Rome  by  the  military  unrest  and  the  attitude  of  Tiberius, 
continues  through  chapter  49,  in  whose  concluding  sentences 
we  read  that  the  final  fruit  of  the  wild  outburst  is  as  wild  a 
penitence  (truces  etiam  turn  animos  cupido  involat  eundi  in 
hostem,  piaculum  furoris).  As  far  as  space  in  the  pages  of 
history  goes,  the  two  rebellions  receive  equal  attention  at  the 
hands  of  the  historian;  but  a  careful  examination  and  com- 
parison of  the  treatment  accorded  to  each  uprising  offers 
results  not  without  weight  for  those  interested  in  the  methods 
of  the  Tacitean  art. 

The  outbreak  in  Pannonia,  as  Tacitus  tells  us  (chapter  16), 
was  consequent  on  no  definite  preliminary  acts  (nullis  novis 
causis).  The  state  of  idleness  in  a  summer  camp  (intermiserat 
(Blaesus)  solita  munia)  had  already  engendered  a  mischievous 
spirit  (lascivire  miles,  discordare),  and  the  death  of  Augustus, 
rousing  the  memory  of  political  changes  in  which  an  army 
had  played  important  roles,  gave  the  final  impulse  to  disorder 
(mutatus  princeps  licentiam  turbarum  et  ex  civili  bello  spem 
praemiorum  ostendebat).  The  seven  following  chapters  paint 
a  vivid  picture  of  the  mutinous  camp.  There  is  no  leading 
figure;  with  kaleidoscopic  effect  the  personages  and  details 
pass  before  us  as  we  read.  We  recognize  the  familiar  figure  of 
the  "walking  delegate"  in  the  "Percennius  quidam,  dux  olim 
theatralium  operarum,  dum  gregarius  miles,  proca  lingua  et 
miscere  coetus  histrionali  studio  doctus,"  as  he  gathers  the 
discontented  element  of  the  camp  together,  at  first  in  midnight 
meetings,  then,  growing  bolder,  more  openly  fans  the  flame  of 
mutiny,  until  after  the  insurrectionary  speech  given  in  chapter 
17,  it  bursts  Into  a  blaze.  Blaesus,  intrepid  and  resolute 
throughout,  although  legatus  does  not  claim  our  attention 
more  closely  than  Aufidius  Rufus,  the  prefect,  with  his  experi- 
ences at  the  hands  of  the  soldiers,  related  in  chapter  20,  un- 
pleasant but  not  without  a  touch  of  comedy,  or  Bibulenus  with 
his  taste  for  pathos  and  his  inventive  powers  (chapters  22,  23). 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  2$ 

Nor  can  we  forget  the  centurion  Lucilius,  characterized  in  the 
description  of  the  murderous  attack  on  the  centurions  by  the 
clause  "cui  militaribus  facetiis  vocabulum  'cedo  alteram' 
indiderant,"  and  the  appropriate  reason  for  the  name.  At 
this  juncture  Drusus  arrives,  accompanied  by  a  reassuring 
bodyguard  (Ann.,  I.  24:  cum  primoribus  civitatis  duabusque 
praetoriis  cohortibus),  strong  in  itself,  although,  to  strengthen 
it  further,  extraordinary  precautions  have  been  taken  (et 
cohortes  delecto  milite  supra  solitum  firmatae.  Additur  magna 
pars  praetoriani  equitis  et  robora  Germanorum  qui  turn  cus- 
todes  imperatori  erant).  To  these  material  defences  is  added 
Sejanus,  as  adviser  for  Drusus  (rector  iuveni),  to  which  respon- 
sibility is  annexed  the  wide  and  promising  field  of  appeal  to  the 
greed  or  cowardice  of  the  mutineers  (et  ceteris  periculorum 
praemiorumque  ostentator).  Although  sent  nullis  certis  man- 
datis,  Drusus  is  merely  a  representative  of  Tiberius,  and 
the  ex  re  consulturum  will  fall  on  Sejanus.  The  effect  of  the 
Emperor's  message,  read  by  Drusus  to  the  army,  is  not  sooth- 
ing; after  angry  demands  for  concessions  and  strong  accusations 
against  both  Tiberius  and  Drusus,  presented  by  Tacitus  with 
persuasive  innuendo  as  the  spotaneous  utterances  of  the  excited 
soldiery — an  admirable  instance  of  the  skill  with  which  this 
historian  avails  himself  of  every  opportunity  for  indirect 
characterization — the  contio  breaks  up,  ripe  for  more  violent 
deeds.  The  presence  of  Drusus  is  no  check  upon  such  demon- 
strations. Lentulus,  to  whom  the  soldiers  feel  especial 
resentment,  is  attacked  as  he  is  departing  from  the  tribunal  in 
company  with  the  Caesar,  and  is  saved  only  by  the  coming  up 
of  the  strong  body  of  troops  which  form  the  imperial  reserve 
(ad  cursu  multitudinis  quae  cum  Druso  advenerat,  protectus 
est).  The  crisis  threatened  by  the  approaching  night  is  averted 
by  a  chance  that  arrays  superstition  on  the  side  of  those  in 
command  (chapter  28.  i :  noctem  minacem  et  in  scelus  erup- 
turam  fors  lenivit:  nam  luna  claro  repente  caelo  visa  relan- 
guescere).  Interpreting  the  continuance  of  this  phenomenon 
as  disastrous  to  their  efforts,  the  soldiers  waver,  believing  the 


24  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

gods  averse  to  them.  We  trace  the  agency  of  Sejanus  In  the 
instant  advantage  taken  by  Drusus  of  this  state  of  mind;  the 
generalization  of  the  methods  of  the  emissaries  sent  by  Drusus 
to  the  soldiers  on  guard  in  the  rebellious  camp  (spem  offerunt, 
metum  intendunt)  can  be  interpreted  rationally  as  an  out- 
working of  the  deliberations  of  the  periculorum  praemiorumque 
ostentator  of  chapter  24.  The  policy  of  summary  punishment 
of  flagrant  offenders  may  be  traced  to  the  same  advisory  source 
(chapter  29:  nihil  in  vulgo  modicum;  terrere  ni  paveant,  ubi 
pertimuerint;  impune  contemni;  dum  superstitio  urgeat, 
adiciendos  ex  duce  metus  sublatis  seditionis  auctoribus). 
Nor  is  a  convenient  point  of  presentation  of  a  fault  in  the 
character  of  Drusus  omitted  (promptum  ad  asperiora  ingenium 
Druso  erat).  The  strong  measures  adopted,  together  with 
sudden  and  unseasonable  storms,  which  to  the  eyes  of  the 
ignorant  soldiery  represent  the  "caelestis  ira,"  complete  the 
suppression  of  disorder,  and  Drusus  returns  to  Rome,  leaving 
matters  in  a  state  sufficiently  satisfactory.  To  review  briefly 
the  foregoing  narrative,  it  is  in  summary  a  lively  account  of  an 
event  with  some  historical  significance,  amid  whose  scenes  we 
discern  no  central  figure,  although  many  personalities  of  more 
or  less  passing  interest  claim  our  attention.  Drusus,  who 
technically  handles  the  situation,  is  painted  in  dull  tones;  his 
own  speech  and  actions  do  not  quell  the  mutiny;  that  Is 
brought  about  by  the  Intervention  of  Providence  and  the  aid  of 
that  shrewd  advisor,  Sejanus.  We  have  already  noted  that 
the  concluding  steps  taken  by  Drusus  serve  to  Illustrate  a  defect 
of  character,  and  upon  this  Tacitus  comments  openly.  These 
points  are  emphasized  here  because  we  shall  find  In  the  story 
of  the  second  mutiny  features  which  present  contrasts  almost 
symmetrical,  so  much  so  that  the  first  narrative  forms  an 
admirable  foil  to  throw  out  the  stronger  colors  of  the  second. 
The  Insurrections  occur  at  the  same  time  (chapter  31:  isdem 
fere  diebus) ;  the  causes  are  similar  (isdem  causis) ;  but  the 
second  presents  difficulties  far  greater  than  the  first  (quanto 
plures,   tanto  violentlus).     The  movement  Is   organized   and 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  ^5 

general,  and  the  Intention  of  the  historian  to  contrast  in  this 
respect  the  rebellion  first  outlined  is  shown  hy  a.  clause  of  direct 
comparison,  as  well  as  by  the  more  subtly  rhetorical  avaipeai';^ 
already  noted  as  characteristic  of  the  syncritical  figure  (31.  5: 
non  unus  haec,  ut  Pannonicas  inter  legiones  Percennius,  .  .  . 
sed  multa  seditlonis  ora  vocesque).  The  conclusion  of  chapter 
32  also  calls  attention  with  a  deeply  rhetorical  color  to  the 
securely  founded  and  concerted  nature  of  the  insurrectionary 
movement,  where  after  relating  the  fact  that  the  soldiers  had 
taken  the  control  of  the  camp  into  their  own  hands,  Tacitus 
adds  the  psychologist's  reflection  "id  militares  animos  altius 
coniectantibus,  praecipuum  iudicium  magni  atque  implacabilis 
motus,  quod  neque  disiecti  aut  paucorum  instinctu  sed  pariter 
ardescerent,  pariter  silerent,  tanta  aequalitate  et  constantia  ut 
regi  crederes."  A  contrast  between  the  legions  afi'ected  in 
each  case  by  rebellion  and  their  military  position  is  suggested 
in  chapter  31.  5;  the  German  legions  are  masters  of  the  situ- 
ation, no  strong  praetorian  cohort  is  there  to  overawe  them, 
they  need  not  wait  the  issue  in  bodies  more  powerful  than 
themselves  (nee  apud  trepidas  militum  aures,  alios  validiores 
exercitus  respicentium;  here  again  is  the  suggestion  of  avat- 
/)€<ri9);  these  legions  are  an  influential  factor  in  a  political 
no  less  than  in  a  military  sense.  The  fact  that  their  position 
is  given  by  Tacitus  as  part  of  their  own  reflection  on  the 
situation  at  the  death  of  Augustus  is  significant  of  the  his- 
torian's belief  in  the  possibilities  that  might  have  resulted 
from  their  attitude  (chapter  31.  5:  sua  In  manu  sitam  rem 
Romanam;  suis  victoriis  augeri  rem  publlcam,  in  suum  cog- 
nomentum  adsclsci  impera tores).  (Tacitus  here  puts  Into  the 
indirect  discourse  the  contents  of  the  sed  clause,  corresponding 
to  the  nee  apud  trepidas  militum  aures,  as  sed  multa  seditionis 
ora  vocesque  completes  the  avaipeac^  beginning  in  non  unus 
haec;  by  so  doing,  he  adds  variety  and  conceals  more  artfully 
the  cr'x^fjfjba  avyKpiTtKov) .  The  soldiers'  belief  In  their  own  power 
is  conveyed  also  in  the  significant  indirect  discourse  in  chapter 
31.  I  (legionibus  vi  sua  cuncta  tracturis),  and  the  full  force  of 


26  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

these  suggestions  may  be  understood  from  the  rest  of  the 
same  sentence;  their  hopes  were  centered  in  Germanicus 
(magna  spe  fore  ut  Germanicus  Caesar  imperium  alterius  pati 
nequiret  daretque  se  legionibus  vi  sua  cuncta  tracturis). 
The  possibiHties  for  civil  war  have  already  been  suggested,  i6.  i 
(ex  civili  bello  spem  praemiorum  ostendebat);  also  in  17.  i 
(novum  et  mutantem  adhuc  principem) ;  so  that  here  the  only 
new  note  is  the  definite  mention  of  Germanicus  for  the  leading 
role  in  the  drama  played  so  often  in  Roman  history. 

To  the  evident  traces  of  comparison  between  the  two 
mutinies,  another  is  added  in  the  beginning  of  chapter  32  in  the 
form  of  a-vyKpi<n<i^  already  familiar  (nee  legatus  obviam  ibat). 
The  directly  contrasted  figure  of  Blaesus  is  so  obviously 
suggested  as  to  require  no  argument  to  enforce  its  presence  by 
that  of  the  commander  Caecina,  whose  position  is  indicated  by 
the  suggestion  that  follows:  quippe  plurium  vaecordia  con- 
stantiam  exemerat.^'  Under  these  conditions  in  the  camp  of 
the  lower  army,  it  is  not  surprising  to  read  in  chapter  32  of  the 
successful  carrying  out  of  a  violent  attack  upon  the  centurions, 
and  the  assumption  of  entire  control  of  the  service  by  the  rebels. 

Placing  the  main  characteristics  of  the  Pannonian  rebellion, 
yet  fresh  in  mind,  beside  the  conditions  so  far  developed  of  the 
mutiny  in  Gaul,  the  result  of  the  comparison  is,  on  the  one 
side,  the  rendering  of  the  first  a  mere  bagatelle,  beginning  in 
idle  mischief  and  ending  by  chance;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  critical  and  important  nature  of  the  second  is  to  be  more 
clearly  understood  by  a  juxtaposition  of  its  inner  workings  and 
suggested  issues  with  the  aimless  and  detached  story  of  the 
first.^*     Aside  from  the  artistic  effect  of  this   bit  of  literary 

^'  This  sentence  is  evidently  not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  characterizing  Caecina > 
as  to  add  weight  to  the  gravity  of  the  rebelHon  by  throwing  out  a  reference  to  the  effect 
upon  the  mind  of  the  Heutenant,  whose  career  as  learned  from  other  historical  episodes 
does  not  justify  criticism  of  his  resolution  or  courage. 

^*  That  the  first  movement  was  one  of  greater  gravity  than  Tacitus  contrives  to- 
make  it  appear  is  not  improbable.  The  fact,  that  three  legions  had  come  together 
(tres  legiones  miscere,  ch.  l8)  indicates  much.  If  one  may  not  accuse  Tacitus  of  sup- 
pression in  this  matter,  it  is  at  least  fair  to  note  that  this  fact  is  related  without  comment. 
It  is  improbable  that  they  could  have  thus  united  without  marches  of  considerable 
extent  which  would  show  a  deeper  and  more  intense  element  than  the  Tacitean  account 
would  have  us  suppose. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK    OF   AMMIANUS.  I'J 

artifice,  another  motive  exists  for  Tacitus.  With  the  Gallic 
mutiny,  Germanicus  enters  as  an  historical  character,  and  we 
may  feel  assured  that  all  possible  means  will  be  employed  to 
make  that  entrance  a  striking  and  memorable  one.  The  darker 
the  background  of  the  mutiny  (magnus  et  implacabilis  motus) 
the  more  conspicuously  will  it  place  in  relief  the  character  that 
Tacitus  delights  to  honor.  The  conditions  sketched  in  chapters 
31  and  32  are  per  se  of  a  most  serious  and  threatening  nature; 
add  to  these  the  mental  attitude  of  the  troops  towards  Ger- 
manicus personally,  and  to  meet  all  the  problems  and  possi- 
bilities of  the  hour  a  paragon  is  required.  Interpreted  by  the 
medium  of  Tacitean  art,  Germanicus  is  that  paragon. 
-  The  entire  responsibility  of  the  Gallic  provinces  rests  with 
Germanicus  (chapter  31.  2,  3:  regimen  summae  rei  penes 
Germanicum);  hence,  once  introduced  upon  the  scene  as  the 
central  personage,  his  own  acts  and  words  would  portray 
character,  even  without  the  suggestive  touches  added  where 
occasion  is  afforded.  With  the  opening  words  of  chapter  34 
Tacitus  strikes  the  keynote  for  his  delineation  of  Germanicus, 
incorruptible  loyalty  to  Tiberius  (quanto  summae  spei  propior, 
tanto  impensius  pro  Tiberio  niti);  and  the  position  of  this 
reflection  shows  that  it  is  to  be  interpreted  with  special  reference 
to  the  mutiny  in  hand,  the  description  of  which  is  resumed  im- 
mediately (audito  legionum  tumultu  raptim  profectus).  When 
Germanicus  approaches  the  camp,  the  offenders  come  forth 
to  meet  him  in  apparent  penitence  (deiectis  in  terram  oculis 
velut  paenitentia).  If  with  this  we  compare  chapter  24.  4, 
where  the  meeting  ofDrusus  with  the  Pannonian  troops  is 
described,  we  find  a  similar  imputation  of  assumed  feeling 
(quamquam  maestitiam  imitarentur),  but  the  addition  of  two 
words  (contumaciae  propriores)  marks  a  difference  in  tone, 
slight  but  significant  for  the  relative  estimates  in  which  Drusus 
and  Germanicus  were  held  by  the  troops.  The  appeals,  it 
may  also  be  noted,  in  chapter  34  (postquam  vallum  iniit, 
dissoni  questus  audiri  coepere  et  quidam,  prensa  manu  eius 
per  speciem  osculandi  inseruerunt  digitos,  ut  vacua  dentibus 


28  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

ora  contingeret;  alii  curvata  senio  membra  ostendebant),  are 
of  a  personal  character,  while  In  chapter  25,  which  describes 
the  scene  before  the  tribunal  of  Drusus,  it  is  the  Caesar  only 
that  calls  forth  even  seeming  respect  for  Drusus.  Reluctantly 
as  the  soldiers  fall  into  order  at  the  command  of  Germanicus, 
they  listen  respectfully  while  he  reveres  the  memory  of  Augus- 
tus and  dwells  on  the  exploits  of  Tiberius  with  praises  un- 
stinted and  free.  This  disaffection  is  shown  only  faintly 
(silentio  haec  vel  murmure  modico  audita  sunt).  It  is  the 
reproachful  questions  of  Germanicus  (ubi  modestia  militaris, 
ubi  veteris  disciplinae  decus,  quonam  tribunos  quo  centuriones 
exegissent)  that  cause  the  outbreak  that  is  to  try  so  severely 
his  wisdom  and  loyalty,  to  the  effect  that  he  may  emerge  from 
it  with  heightened  glory.  Even  when  this  storm  breaks  it  is 
not  the  clamor  described  in  chapter  26,  addressed  to  Drusus 
(cur  venisset;  neque  augendis  militum  stipendiis  neque  adle- 
vandis  laboribus,  denique  nulla  •  bene  faciendi  licentia.^  at 
hercule  vergera  et  necem  cunctis  permitti)  ending  with  the 
personal  abuse  of  Drusus  and  Tiberius  noted  above;  it  is 
rather  an  attempted  justification  of  their  actions  by  showing 
wounds  and  scars,  and  a  recital  of  their  grievances,  long  terms 
of  service,  lack  of  pay,  unreasonable  labor,  substantially  the 
burden  of  complaint  of  chapter  26,  but  presented  in  a  different 
spirit;  the  name  applied  in  chapter  26  is  "mandata";  in 
chapter  35,  even  in  the  case  of  the  veterans  who  seem  the  most 
clamorous,  it  is  appeal,  not  demand  (orabant);  and  to  realize 
the  full  force  of  this  comparison  in  enhancing  the  regard  felt 
for  Germanicus,  fresh  in  mind  are  the  points  of  contrast  already 
established,  impressive  of  the  more  dangerous  nature  of  the 
second  mutiny  (chapter  31:  quanto  plures,  tanto  violentius; 
chapter  32.  5:  id  militaris  animos  altius  coniectantibus  prae- 
cipuum  indicium  magni  atque  implacabilis  motus,  quod,  etc.). 
The  climax  of  the  situation  is  reached  in  the  recognition  of 
Germanicus  as  the  rightful  heir  of  Augustus  although  Tacitus 
veils  this  moment  of  emotional  intensity  with  a  guarded  phrase 
{fuere  etiam  qui  legatam  a  divo  x\ugusto  pecuniam  reposcerent), 


THE   LITERARY  WORK   OF  AMMIANUS.  29 

and  in  the  zeal  of  the  soldiers  for  his  establishment  as  emperor, 
and  promises  of  adherence  (faustis  in  Germanicum  ominibus; 
et  si  vellet  imperium,  promptas  res  ostentavere).  Up  to  this 
time  there  has  not  been  recorded  a  word  of  threat  or  danger 
to  Germanicus;  he  is  the  soldiers'  hope,  their  savior,  to  him 
they  offer  their  allegiance.  The  loyalty  of  Germanicus  is 
beyond  all  proof;  abhorrence  of  the  thought  is  vivified  in  action 
(tum  vero,  quasi  scelere  contaminaretur,  praeceps  tribunali 
desiluit).  The  disappointed  soldiers  demand  his  return  with 
menacing  weapons  (minitantes  ni  regrederetur) ;  the  dramatic 
tension  of  this  part  of  the  scene  culminates  in  the  Caesar's 
refusal  unto  death  (ille  moriturus  potius  quam  fidem  exueret 
clamitans,  ferrum  a  latere  diripuit,  elatumque  deferebat  in 
pectus,  ni  proximi  prensam  dexteram  vi  adtinuissent).  The 
rash  actions  of  those  who  order  him  to  strike,  with  the  definite 
addition  of  the  miles  nomine  Calusidius,  serve  as  a  background 
against  which  stands  out  the  horror  of  the  rest  at  such  atrocity 
(saevum  id  malique  moris  etiam  furentibus  visum),  and  allows 
the  exit  of  Germanicus  during  the  pause  of  shrinking  con- 
sternation. The  encomiastic  significance  of  this  chapter  for 
the  character  of  Germanicus  can  hardly  be  overestimated; 
and  yet,  such  is  the  art  of  the  historian,  that  there  is  not  one 
word  of  direct  characterization  throughout;  the  words  and 
actions  of  the  army,  of  the  Caesar  himself,  unfold  with  studied 
care  the  triumph  of  an  incorruptible  nature  in  an  hour  of  strong 
temptation;  while  the  inference  for  history  is  the  averting  of  a 
civil  war  through  his  pure  ambition  and  loyalty. 

Although  the  first  chapter  in  the  mutiny  is  closed,  and  the 
refusal  of  Germanicus  is  accepted  as  decisive,  the  remaining 
passages  that  deal  with  this  matter  offer  many  interesting  evi- 
dences of  the  purpose  and  skill  of  Tacitus.  Chapter  36  con- 
tains a  summary  of  the  difficulties  of  the  situation  which  stamps 
it  as  a  grave  emergency.  The  sedition  threatens  to  spread 
(parari  legatos  qui  superiorem  exercitum  ad  causam  eundem 
traherent) ;  plans  for  plunder  and  slaughter  are  on  foot  (desti- 
natum  excidio  Ubiorum  oppidum,  imbutasque  praeda  manus  in 


30  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

direptionem  Galliarum  erupturas);  the  enemy  is  aware  of  the 
insurrection  and  awaits  his  opportunity  (gnarus  Romanae 
seditionis  et,  si  omitteretur  ripa,  invasurus  hostis);  it  is  a 
matter  that  jeopards  the  state,  a  problem  almost  without 
solution  (periculosa  severitas,  flagitiosa  largitio;  seu  nihil 
militi  sive  omnia  concederetur,  in  ancipiti  res  publica). 

Chapter  40.  All  except  Germanicus  are  in  fear;  their 
apprehensions  lead  them  to  reproaches  of  their  leader.  Ex- 
pression of  this  feeling  gives  Tacitus  an  opportunity  to  put  in 
strong  colors  the  generous  leniency  of  Germanicus  through  his 
favorite  instrument  of  indirect  discourse  (eo  in  metu  arguere 
Germanicum  omnes,  quod  non  ad  superiorem  exercitum 
pergeret  ubi  obsequia  et  contra  rebellis  auxilium:  satis  superque 
missione  et  pecunia  et  mollibus  consultis  peccatum).  Under 
the  guise  of  reproach,  the  Caesar's  intrepidity  is  held  up  before 
us  (si  vilis  ipsi  salus).  Appealed  to  in  the  name  of  the  safety 
of  his  family,  Germanicus,  the  tender  husband  and  father,  is 
influenced  so  far  only  as  to  remove  his  wife  and  family  from  the 
scene  of  danger,  but  remains  himself.  This  the  soldiers  will 
not  permit.  The  fact  that  they  are  recalled  to  their  duty  and 
obedience  by  personal  feeling  for  Germanicus  is  the  only 
possible  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  scene  described  in 
chapter  41.  The  speech  of  Germanicus  (chapter  42,  43)  is 
for  the  purpose  of  characterization  and  that  alone. ^®  His 
patriotism  and  devotion  to  Tiberius  are  stronger  than  all  other 
considerations  (chapter  42,  i :  non  mihi  uxor  aut  filius  patre  et 
re  publica  cariores  sunt).  His  reproaches  and  appeals  to  the 
soldiers  throughout  the  speech  are  made  not  in  his  own  name 
but  that  of  the  Emperor.  Agrippina  is  not  referred  to  as  the 
Caesar's  wife;  she  is  Tiherii  nurus;  Germanicus  himself  is 
Augusti  pronepos,  filius  imperatoris  nostri.  The  speech  cannot 
but  be  considered  a  miracle  of  eloquence  and  tact,  a  proof  of 
the  facundia  of  the  young  general,  as  powerful  an  influence  in 
the  contio  as  on  the  field  of  battle.     The  effect  on  the  soldiers 

^'  The  rhetorical  character  of  this  speech  is  noted  by  Furneaux,  and  the  evident 
reminiscence  of  the  speech  of  Scipio  Africanus,  Liv.,  28,  27,  is  pointed  out. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  3 1 

Is  instantaneous,  so  apparent  that  the  speaker  recognizes  it 
(chapter  43 :  vosque  quorum  alia  nunc  ora,  aha  pectora  con- 
tueor) ;  they  confess  their  guilt,  offer  the  most  flagrant  offenders 
for  punishment,  and  promise  return  to  allegiance. 

The  wisdom,  tact  and  generosity  of  Germanicus  thus 
triumph  over  all  obstacles.  The  close  of  the  disturbance  in 
the  army  of  Caecina  is  worth  noting,  as  a  point  of  comparison 
of  Germanicus  with  Drusus  may  be  here  inferred.  The 
punishment  of  the  guilty  is  put  by  suggestion  from  Germanicus, 
first,  in  the  case  of  the  lower  army,  into  the  hands  of  the  eagerly 
penitent  soldiers,  who  in  their  zeal  hold  a  court-martial  whose 
results  resemble  a  massacre.  Tacitus  makes  this  comment, 
chapter  44:  Nee  Caesar  arcebat,  quando  nullo  ipsius  iussu  penes 
eosdem  saevitia  facti  et  invidia  erat.  The  same  course  is 
followed  in  the  camp  of  Caecina,  with  more  horrifying  results; 
here,  too,  we  find  an  allusion  to  the  attitude  of  Germanicus, 
chapter  49:  mox  ingressus  castra  Germanicus,  non  medicinam 
illud  plurimis  cum  lacrimis  sed  cladem  appellans,  cremari 
corpora  iubet.  The  application  of  these  passages  is  obvious. 
The  severity  of  the  punishment  is  such  as  to  lay  the  com- 
mander-in-chief open  to  an  invidious  charge  of  cruelty;  by  the 
skill  of  Tacitus  he  is  completely  absolved  from  any  such 
accusations,  and  invested  with  a  spirit  of  tenderness  and 
humanity;  while  a  like  situation  in  the  first  mutiny  called  forth 
from  the  historian  the  sentence,  "promptum  ad  asperiora 
ingenium  Druso  erat." 

It  is  worth  while  in  this  connection  to  recall  the  position 
ascribed  by  Tacitus  to  Tiberius  with  reference  to  the  mutinies. 
An  ostentatious  but  insincere  speech  to  the  senate  (magis  in 
speciem  verbis  adornata  quam  ut  penitus  sentire  crederetur) 
recognizes  the  success  of  Germanicus;  a  more  emphatic  mark 
of  praise  is  awarded  Drusus  (paucioribus  Drusum  et  finem 
Illyrici  motus  laudavit,  sed  intentior  et  fida  oratione).  Besides 
this  innuendo  on  the  Emperor's  sincerity,  his  grudging  praise 
of  Germanicus  hints  at  a  bid  for  popularity  in  the  actions  of 
his  adopted  son  (quod  largiendis  pecuniis  et  missione  festinata 


32  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF  AMMIANUS. 

favorem  militum  quaesivisset),  a  dark  contrast  to  what  in  the 
mind  of  Tacitus  was  the  truth  in  the  case. 

An  historical  scene,  closely  resembling  the  situation  in  which 
we  have  seen  Germanicus  during  the  mutiny  in  Gaul,  but 
possessing  a  different  denouement,  is  the  occasion  of  Julian's 
elevation  to  the  position  of  emperor.  There  are  many  points 
in  the  technique  of  Ammianus  in  this  portion  of  his  history  that 
may  reasonably  be  taken  as  indication  of  the  fact  that  he  has 
well  in  mind  not  only  the  Tacitean  treatment  just  noted 
but  other  phases  of  the  story  of  Germanicus.  It  must  be  con- 
ceded that  the  later  historian  had  the  harder  task.  He 
must  reconcile,  to  a  character  which  he  would  represent  as 
model,  a  course  of  action  which,  to  say  the  least,  was  of  doubt- 
ful credit.  Direct  personal  comment  was  impossible;  the  only 
convincing  method  of  making  the  worse  appear  the  better 
cause  was  to  force  facts  and  words  to  do  service  on  the  side 
which  Ammianus  desired  to  triumph.  The  traditional  maxims 
of  encomiastic  style  offer  justification  of  optimistic  presentation 
of  dubious  matter,  and  as  we  shall  see,  Ammianus  did  not 
neglect  their  instructions.  The  results  achieved  may  be  looked 
upon  as  successful,  and  it  is  in  this  part  of  his  delineation  of 
Julian  that  Ammianus  has  shown  the  most  persuas-ive  and  at 
the  same  time  most  unobtrusive  form  of  art.  But  let  us  take 
up  the  situation  in  question. 

Under  pretence  of  a  movement  against  the  Parthians,  the 
jealous  Constantius  orders  the  troops  who  have  been  under 
service  with  Julian  to  leave  Gaul  for  the  East  (XX.  4,  2).  As 
Germanicus  (Ann.,  II.  26)  acquiesces  in  his  return  from  Gaul, 
at  the  hour  of  highest  triumph  (hand  cunctatus  est  ukra 
Germanicus),  so  Julian  bows  to  the  will  of  Constantius  (con- 
ticuit  hisque  adquieverat  lulianus,  potioris  arbitrio  cuncta 
concedens).  But,  model  general  as  he  is,  although  submitting 
to  the  lessening  of  his  own  power,  for  the  soldiers  he  is  com- 
pelled to  remonstrate. 

XX.  4,  4:  lUud  tamen  nee  dissimulare  potuit  nee  silere  (dissim- 
ulare,  for  the  Caesar  knows  well  the  real  object  of  Constantius  in 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  33 

withdrawing  the  troops,  but  hides  his  knowledge  since  it  concerns 
him  alone)  ut  illi  nullas  paterentur  molestias,  qui  relictis  laribus 
transrhenanis  sub  hoc  venerant  pacto,  ne  ducerentur  ad  partes 
unquam  transalpinas. 

The  next  sentence  in  the  Oratio  Obliqua  is  a  strong  illustration 
of  Julian's  sagacity  as  well  as  of  his  justice: 

verendum  esse,  adfirmans,  ne  voluntarii  barbari  mllitares,  saepe 
sub  eius  modi  legibus  adsueti  transire  ad  nostra,  hoc  cognito, 
deinceps  arcerentur. 

His  remonstrance  is,  however,  of  little  avail.  Three  hundred 
picked  men  from  the  legions  are  immediately  withdrawn  by  the 
legatus  in  charge  of  the  matter,  the  rest  to  follow  later. 

An  elaboration  of  the  difficulties  which  now  faced  Julian  is 
next  introduced  in  the  highly  artificial  and  inverted  diction 
which  Ammianus  uses  to  the  greatest  excess  when  dealing  with 
what  he  deems  most  important.  We  are  put  by  the  wording 
of  Ammianus  in  possession  of  the  Caesar's  thoughts,  and,  from 
that  point  of  view,  survey  the  situation. 

XX.  4,  6:  Et  quia  sollicitus  Caesar,  quid  de  residuis  mitti 
praeceptis  agi  deberet,  perque  varias  curas  animum  versans, 
attente  negotium  tractari  oportere  censebat  cum  hinc  barbara 
feritas  inde  iussorum  urgeret  auctoritas  maximeque  absentia 
magistri  equitum  augente  dubitatem. 

The  defenceless  position  of  the  provinces  is  touched  on 
again  (7), 

abstrahendos  e  Galliarum  defensione  pugnaces  numeros  barbaris- 
qu?,  iam  formidatos. 

Julian's  whole  consideration  is  for  the  soldiers  and  the  country, 
not  for  himself,  as  interpreted  for  us  by  Ammianus.  As 
Germanicus  bore  alone  the  burden  of  the  Gallic  mutiny,  so 
Julian  encounters  the  difficulties  caused  by  Constantius'  order. 
His  prefect  is  absent,  and  the  refusal  of  the  latter  to  return 
leaves  Julian  without  advisers;  the  responsibility  rests  upon 
him  alone  (consiliatorum  adminiculo  destitutus).     He  finally 


34  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF    AMMIANUS. 

decides  to  call  all  the  required  troops  from  their  winter  quarters 
to  prepare  for  the  march  ordered  by  Constantius.  The  dis- 
content caused  by  this  decision  breaks  forth  in  a  lampoon, 
emanating  from  the  Petulantes,  which,  among  other  things 
not  given  by  the  historian,  contained  the  following  grievance, 
an  outworking,  one  would  note,  of  the  difficulty  suggested  by 
Julian  in  4: 

XX.  4,  10:  nos  quidem  ad  orbis  terrarum  extrema  ut  noxii 
pellimur  et  damnati,  caritates  vero  nostrae  Alamannis  denuo 
servirent,  quas  captivitate  prima  post  internecivas  liberavimus 
pugnas. 

This,  the  first  outward  sign  of  dissatisfaction  from  the  troops, 
proves  the  correctness  of  the  Caesar's  original  thought  regard- 
ing the  situation.  Ammianus  is  certainly  not  quoting  the 
"libellus"  in  question;  the  diction  is  peculiarly  his  own. 

The  permission  given  to  the  families  to  accompany  the 
soldiers,  although  without  comment,  is  an  illustration  of  the 
just  kindness  of  Julian.  The  route  chosen  for  the  departure 
lies  through  Paris,  where  Julian  was  then  staying.  Forestalling 
any  unfavorable  interpretation  of  hidden  purpose  in  this 
choice,  Ammianus  is  careful  to  tell  us  that  it  was  not  Julian's 
own  proposition  but  the  suggestion  of  another. 

XX.  4,  II:  placuit  notario  suggerente  Decentio  per  Parisios 
omnes  transire. 

Again  in  12,  where  we  are  told  that  Julian  goes  out  to  meet  the 
troops,  and,  as  becomes  the  personal  commander,  addresses 
and  praises  individuals  ex  more,  suspicion  of  any  ulterior  motive 
is  anticipated  and  checked  by  giving  the  substance  of  his 
exhortation: 

ut  ad  Augustum  alacri  gradu  pergerent,  ubi  potestas  est  ample 
patens  et  larga,  praemia  laborum  adepturi  dignissima. 

Compare  for  this  treatment  of  the  soldiers  the  passage  in  Ann., 
I.  71,  where  Germanicus  encourages  his  troops: 

circumire  saucios,  facta  singulorum  extollere;  vulnera  intuens  alium 
spe,  alium  gloria,  cunctos  adloquio  et  cura  sibique  et  proelio  firmabat. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  35 

So  Julian,  XX,  4,  12: 

idem  que  adventantibus  in  suburbanis  princeps  occurrit,  ex  more 
laudans  quos  agnoscebat,  factorumque  fortium  singulos  monens, 
animabat  lenibus  verbis. 

A  farewell  banquet  is  given  to  the  chiefs,  and  permission  is 
accorded  to  them  to  make  any  necessary  request.  The 
artifice  employed  by  Tacitus  in  Ann.,  II.  13,  where  the  soldiers' 
free  talk  around  the  camp-fire  on  the  eve  of  battle  is  made  a 
medium  of  imparting  the  esteem  in  which  they  hold  German- 
icus,  has  an  echo  here  in  Ammianus.  The  chiefs  return  from 
the  convivium  "dolore  duplici  suspensi  et  maesti,"  and  the 
cause  of  their  grief  is  assigned,  in  their  own  sorrowing  reflection, 
"quod  eos  fortuna  quaedam  inclemens  et  moderato  rector e  et 
terris  genitalibus  dispararet."  Their  feeling  leads  to  action 
during  the  night;^°  they  throng  the  palace  of  Julian  and  hail 
him  as  Augustus.  There  is  no  avenue  left  for  escape  (14: 
spatiis  eius  ambitis,  ne  ad  evadendi  copiam  quisquam  per- 
veniret);  Julian  delays  until  delay  is  no  longer  possible  (ex- 
spectari  coacti  dum  lex  promicaret,  tandem  progredi  com- 
pulerunt),  and  is  greeted  with  more  determined  cries  of  "Augus- 
tus." The  description  of  his  refusal,  dramatically  put  as,  we 
remember,  was  that  of  Germanicus  on  a  like  occasion,  sounds 
like  an  amplification  of  the  Tacitean  theme.^^ 

15:  et  ille,  mente  fundata  universis  resistebat,  et  singulis,  indignari 
semet  ostendens,  nunc  manus  tendens  oransque  et  obsecrans,  ne 
post  multas  felicissimasque  victorias  agatur  aliquid  indecorum, 
neve  intempestiva  temeritas  et  prolapsis  discordiarum  materias 
excitaret. 

The  occasion  for  a  speech  that  would  prove  his  sincerity  and 
loyalty  to  the  Emperor  is  not  overlooked  by  the  historian. 

XX.  4,   16:  Cesset  ira  quaeso  paulisper:  absque  dissensione  vel 
rerum    adpetitu    novarum    impetrabitur    facile    quod    postulatis, 

2"  XX.  4,  14.     Nocte  vero  coeptante  in  apertum  erupere  discidium.     Cf.  Ann.,  I. 
28;  noctem  minacem  et  in  scelus  erupturam. 

2'  Ann.,  I.  35,  quasi  scelere  contaminaretur,  praeceps  tribunali  desiluit. 


36  THE    LITERARY    WORK    OF   AMMIANUS. 

quonlam  dulcedo  vos  patriae  retinet,  et  insueta  peregrinaque  metuitis 
loca,  redite  iam  nunc  ad  sedes  nihil  visuri  quia  displicet,  transal- 
pinum.  Hocque  apud  Augustum  capacem  rationis  et  prudentissi- 
mum  ego  conpetenti  satisfactione  purgabo. 

Despite  the  concessions  of  this  speech,  the  insistent  soldiers 
continue  their  demands,  and  Julian,  after  vain  protests  and 
delay,  is  compelled  to  accept  the  honor,  which  Ammianus 
would  have  us  consider  thrust  upon  him.  The  ardor  of  the 
troops,  even  resorting  to  threats  and  reproaches,  as  we  re- 
member did  also  the  troops  of  Germanicus,  the  order  to  assume 
a  crown,  the  scruples  of  Julian  representing  his  reluctance,  the 
repetition  of  the  necessity  pressing  on  him,  all  these  are 
amplification  of  the  historian  eager  to  excuse  and  defend  the 
course  taken  by  his  favorite  Emperor.  From  the  standpoint 
of  history,  we  need  no  such  elaborations  of  the  circumstances; 
they  are  purely  biographical,  serving  only  to  illustrate  a  point 
of  character,  which  actual  results  contradict.  The  emphasis 
laid  on  necessitudo  is  a  point  worth  special  consideration: 

XX.  4,  14.     Tandem  progredi  compulerunt. 

17.  Caesar  adsentire  coactus  est. 

18.  Trusus  ad  necessitatem  extremam  iamque  pericu- 
lum  praesens  vitare  non  posse  advertens  si  reniti 
perseverasset.^^ 

This  is  to  be  recognized  as  a  part  of  ev(f)r)fiia  enjoined  in  the 
four  general  maxims  for  encomium  (Aristid.,  Sp.  II.  505,  10),^^ 
a  form  of  the  0X0)9  ael  irdvra  iirl  to  kuWCov  ipyd^€a(f>ai  to  which 
the  rhetorician  exhorts  the  would-be  worker  in  encomiastic 
literature  (Nic.  Soph.,  Sp.  Ill,  p.  481,  24).  Still  more  apt  to 
the  case  in  hand  is  the  phrase  in  Cicero,  de  Inv.  174 — "cum 
incolumitati  videbimur  consulere,  vere  poterimus  dicere  nos 
honestatis  rationem  habere  quoniam  sine  incolumitate  eam 
nuUo  tempore  possumus  adipisci." 

*2  Compare  the  words  of  Julian  in  the  speech  to  the  army,  XXI.  5,  5.  At  nunc 
cum  auctoritate  vestri  indicii  rerum  que  necessitate  compulsus  ad  angustum  elatus  sum 
culmen,  where  the  same  motive  is  transferred  to  the  indirect  technique. 

23  Xafi^dvovrai  5^    ol    ^iraivoi  Karet   rpdirovs  riaffapas    aii^i^ffei    irapa\el\f'ei    vapaPoXij 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  37 

Confirmation  of  Julian's  attitude  is  conveyed  in  the  para- 
graphs that  follow  (19-22),  which  have  no  indispensable 
historical  force,  but  continue  the  theme  of  the  foregoing  passage 
for  elaboration  of  the  new  emperor's  reluctance  and  his  con- 
scientious action.  Julian  is  stunned  by  the  turn  that  matters 
have  taken  (4.  19-20:  accidentium  varietate  perterritus) ;  his 
modesty  and  reluctance  to  assume  imperial  honors  are  im- 
pressed upon  the  reader  by  his  course  of  action  (19:  nee  diadema 
gestavit,  nee  procedere  ausus  unquam,  nee  agere  seria  quae 
nimis  urgebant).  But  the  soldiers  again  flock  to  the  palace, 
and  with  insisting  shouts  and  threats  refuse  to  depart  unless 
they  see  their  chosen  Emperor  in  his  imperial  robes  (4.  22:  non 
antea  discesserunt  quam  adsciti  in  consistorum  fulgentem  eum 
augusto  habitu  conspexissent).  The  reiteration  of  this  phase 
of  the  matter  can  have  but  one  motive,  namely,  the  justi- 
fication of  Julian's  acceptance.  We  find  the  same  points  made 
prominent  in  the  letter  sent  later  by  Julian  to  Constantius 
(XX.  8,  5  fF.) ;  he  dwells  upon  the  violence  of  the  soldiers  and 
his  own  unwillingness.  He  was  shocked,  and  sought  conceal- 
ment (XX.  8,  9:  cohorrui,  fateor,  et  secessi  amendatusque  dum 
potui  salutem  mussatione  quaerebam  et  latebris) ;  he  appeared 
to  the  soldiers  in  the  final  extremity  only  for  the  purpose  of 
stilling  their  tumult  (XX.  8,  9:  cumque  nuUae  darentur  indu- 
tiae,  libero  pectoris  muro,  ut  ita  dixerim,  saeptus  progressus 
ante  conspectum  omnium  steti,  molliri  posse  tumultum 
auctoritate  ratus,  vel  sermonibus  blandis);  the  excitement  of 
the  troops,  their  menaces  and  threats  are  emphasized  (8,  10: 
exarsere  mirum  in  modum,  eo  usque  provecti,  ut  quoniam  preci- 
bus  vincere  pertinacione  conabar,  instanter  mortem  contiguis 
adsultibus  intentarent).  Thus  does  he  plead  the  final  exigency 
which  forced  him  to  the  course  adopted  (10:  victus  denique 
mecumque  ipse  contestans  quod  alter  confosso  me  forsitan 
libens  declarabitur  princeps,  adsensus  sum,  vim  lenire  sperans 
armatam). 

In  the  last  sentence,  which  contains  his  own  self-justification 
(mecumque  ipse  contestans,  etc.),  is  the  very  essence  of  the 


38  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

Ciceronian  dictum  for  the  interpretation  of  necessitas  as 
honestas;  if  safe,  he  might  consider  an  honorable  future,  faithful 
to  Constantius,  in  which  case  he  really  consulted  that  which  was 
honorable.  There  is  proof  from  other  writings  of  Julian  that 
the  substance  of  his  communication  to  Constantius  was  what 
Ammianus  here  conveys,  but  the  application  of  this  letter 
to  the  historian's  purpose  of  eulogizing  Julian  is  what  is  note- 
worthy; and  it  speaks  eloquently  for  the  lessons  learned  from 
Tacitus  by  the  later  writer  in  the  instruments  of  the  indirect 
method,  though  the  art  of  concealing  their  use  was  not  so 
well  mastered.  We  feel  the  special  pleading  in  Ammianus 
before  we  have  received  its  complete  import;  in  Tacitus,  all 
details  are  in  our  minds  ere  the  writer's  purpose  has  been 
suspected,  so  speciously  is  the  historical  continuity  maintained. 
The  speech  made  by  Julian  before  the  assembled  soldiers 
(XX.  5,  3-8)  reveals  in  the  summarizing  of  Julian's  exploits 
a  further  attempt  at  justification.  The  setting-forth  of  the 
past,  thus  blending  with  praise  for  the  army  the  claims  of 
Julian  to  distinction,  is  an  artistic  touch.  The  preliminary 
reference  to  his  youth  at  the  time  when  he  became  Caesar 
(vix  dum  adulescens  specie  tenus  purpuratus)  casts  a  more 
strongly  favorable  light  upon  the  glory  since  achieved.  Since 
that  time,  he  has  never  wavered  in  a  virtuous  and  moderate 
course  (numquam  a  proposito  recte  vivendi  delectus  sum); 
he  has  been  foremost  in  every  undertaking  (vobiscum  in  omni 
labore  perspicuus);  then  follows,  with  the  afi^r](n<i  permitted 
to  the  general's  speech,  the  description  of  difficulties  and 
dangers  past  (cum  dispersa  gentium  confidentia  post  civitatum 
excidia  peremptaque  innumera  hominum  milia,  pauca,  quae 
semiintegra  sunt  relicta,  cladis  immensitas  persultaret).  It  is 
needless  to  recount  all  the  struggles  of  inclement  seasons; 
when  both  on  land  and  sea  others  refrained  from  warlike 
efforts  they  vanquished  the  Alamanni.  Here  is  the  implied 
avyKpt(Ti<;  with  former  armies  and  rulers,  nations  previously 
unconquered  having  succumbed  (indomitos  antea).  That 
most  glorious  day  at  Strasbourg,  liberating  Gaul  forever,  must 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  39 

not  be  ignored  (ille  beatissimus  dies  vehens  quodammodo 
Galliis  perpetuam  libertatem).  Although  from  JuHan's  own 
lips,  the  almost  arrogant  terms  of  praise  relating  to  himself 
are  softened  and  deprived  of  invidious  effect  by  extending  the 
praise  to  the  soldiers,  and  the  personal  relations  between 
generals  and  troops. 

It  is  clear  that  all  the  palliating  circumstances  of  the  situa- 
tion have  been  brought  out  vividly  by  Ammianus  in  the 
passages  just  reviewed,  and  that  the  object  of  this  handling  of 
the  subject  with  its  consistent  use  of  the  instruments  of 
indirect  technique,  results  from  the  resolve  of  the  historian  to 
shed  the  most  favorable  light  upon  this  passage  in  the  life  of 
his  favorite  Emperor.  Incidentally,  we  get  a  few  facts,  from 
which  inferences  of  contrasting  signification  could  be  drawn. 
Compare  for  instance  the  quaintly  frank  acknowledgment 
of  the  situation  found  in  XX.  8,  4,  where  Julian's  intention  to 
send  a  letter  to  Constantius  is  discussed. 

Et  quamquam  non  repugnantur,  tamen  nee  abrogantibus  verbis 
quicquam  scripsit  ne  videretur  subito  renuntiasse. 

Another  point  which  might  be  utilized  to  refute  the  view  which 
Ammianus  wishes  to  present  of  Julian's  forced  acceptance  of 
the  power  is  the  story  of  the  omen  (XX.  5,  10).  The  genius 
publicus  appears  to  Julian  on  the  night  preceding  his  elevation 
to  the  purple,  and  warns  him  against  resistance  to  fate. 

Olim,  luliane,  vestibulum  aedium  tuarum  observe  latenter, 
augere  tuam  gestiens  dignitatem  et  aliquotiens  tanquam  repudiatus 
abscessi;  si  ne  nunc  quidem  recipior,  sententia  concordanto  mul- 
torum,  ibo  demissus  et  maestus.  Id  tamen  retineto  imo  corde  quod 
tecum  non  habitabo. 

There  is  also,  of  course,  in  this  a  possible  suggestion  of  spiritual 
reasons  for  accepting  these  honors  with  proper  resignation; 
it  casts,  as  it  were,  the  blessing  of  heaven  upon  the  new  Em- 
peror and  reconciles  him  to  the  breach  of  fidelity  to  Constantine 
by  assuring  the  protection  of  the  gods. 

The  points  of  similarity  between  the  treatment  adopted  by 


40  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

Ammianus  of  this,  the  turning-point  in  Julian's  case,  and  that 
accorded  by  Tacitus  to  a  like  crisis  in  the  life  of  Germanicus 
seem  therefore  too  striking  to  be  viewed  with  indifference  by 
students  of  literary  theory.  The  Tacitean  narrative,  with  its 
brilliance  and  strength,  cannot  fail  to  impress  even  the  ordinary 
reader.  It  is  small  wonder  then  that  Ammianus,  with  strong 
desire  to  achieve  results  in  his  own  work,  should  seize  for  his 
own  purpose  details  of  method  of  which  others,  devoid  of  such 
a  purpose,  would  realize  only  the  impressive  results. 

The  conviction  of  Tacitus  that  the  death  of  Germanicus  in 
Asia  was  due  to  the  machinations  of  Tiberius,  with  Piso  as  his 
tool,  is  strongly  impressed  upon  all  readers  of  the  Annals. 
The  plot  is  foreshadowed  in  Ann.,  11.  5.  After  a  chapter 
devoted  to  sketching  trouble  in  the  East,  the  passage  cited 
opens  with  this  sentence: 

ceterum  Tiberio  haud  ingratum  accedit  turbari  res  Orientis,  ut  ea 
specie  Germanicum  suetis  legionibus  abstraheret,  novisque  pro- 
vinciis  impositum  dolo  simul  et  casibus  obiectaret. 

Following  this  in  immediate  connection  we  find:  / 

at  ille  quanto  acriora  in  eum  studia  militum,  et  aversa  patrui 
voluntas,  celebrandas  victorias  intentior. 

The  sentence  therefore  serves  as  a  comment  on  the  attitude 
of  Tiberius  at  a  period  quite  remote  from  the  catastrophe 
described  in  Ann.,  II.  69  flF.,^'*  and  as  a  connecting  link  for  the 
resumption  of  the  narrative  which  deals  with  Germanicus.  It 
is  not  probable  either  that  Tacitus,  with  his  mastery  of  per- 
suasive artifice,  overlooked  the  effectiveness  of  placing  in  close 
juxtaposition  the  malicious  outworkings  of  the  "aversa  patrui 
voluntas"  and  further  evidence  for  the  "impensius  pro  Tiberio 
niti"  noted  in  I.  34.  Tacitus  makes  no  effort  here  to  conceal 
the  fact  that  it  is  his  own  opinion  that  he  records.  It  is  simply 
and  directly  stated,  and  contains  a  synopsis  of  the  plot,  which, 
as   he   believes,   was   afterwards   carried   out  by  Tiberius   so 

**  The  death  of  Germanicus. 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  41 

successfully.  If  no  other  proofs  of  the  conviction  of  Tacitus 
were  added,  by  the  one  word  "dolo"  he  brands  Tiberius  with 
guilty  complicity  in  the  death  of  Germanicus,  a  complicity  more 
base  because  long-studied  and  deliberate.  But  further  proofs 
are  not  lacking,  both  openly  and  covertly  presented:  and  not 
the  weakest  indication  of  his  belief  is  the  growth  of  a  like  feeling 
in  the  mind  of  one,  who,  abandoning  himself  to  the  spell  of 
the  author,  reads  without  reflection.  A  closer  reasoner  might 
suggest  awkward  questions,  and  point  to  inconsistencies  in  the 
characteristics  of  Tiberius,  hard  to  reconcile. 

In  due  accordance  with  the  design  sketched  in  II.  5,  Ger- 
manicus is  recalled  from  Germany,  and  further  developments 
are  related  in  II.  43,  where  Tacitus  avails  himself  of  the  Oratio 
Obliqua  to  represent  in  the  Emperor's  own  words  the  first 
steps  taken. 

Ann.  II.  43,  I.  Igitur  haec  et  de  Armenia  quae  supra  memoravi 
apud  patris  disseruit,  nee  posse  motum  Orientem  nisi  Germanici 
sapientia  componi  nam  suam  aetatem  vergere,  Drusi  nondum  satis 
adolevisse. 

If  we  place  beside  this  passage  a  sentence  from  11.  26,  where 
Tiberius  is  quoted  as  commenting  invidiously  on  the  strategic 
powers  of  Germanicus  by  contrasting  with  the  methods  used 
by  the  Caesar  in  Gaul  Tiberius'  own  former  achievements,  we 
can  best  appreciate  the  insinuation  conveyed  in  the  words 
cited  above. 

Ann.  II.  26.  se  noviens  a  divo  Augusto  in  Germaniam  missum, 
plura  consiliis  quam  vi  perfecisse. 

The  use  of  sapientia  in  II.  43,  after  the  reflection  in  the  earlier 
passage  is  a  sarcastic  comment  on  the  phrase,  "Drusi  nondum 
satis  adolevisse,"  for,  as  we  remember,  Germanicus  was  but 
two  years  the  senior  of  Drusus.  Under  the  guise  of.  praise  and 
reward,  Germanicus  is  despatched  to  his  death.  With  a  sedy 
whose  suggestive  adversative  force  cannot  be  overestimated 
to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  historian's  implication,  the 
Emperor's  next  move  is  introduced,  the  substitution  of  Cn. 


42  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

Piso  for  Creticus  Silanus  as  legate  of  Syria.  The  phrsaes  that 
characterize  or  comment  on  the  individualities  of  these  men, 
apparently  the  ordinary  asides  that  history  permits  on  the 
admission  of  a  new  personage  of  even  slight  importance,  are 
in  this  connection  charged  with  sinister  significance  for  the 
motives  that  prompted  the  change. 

Sed  Tiberius  demoverat  Suria  Creticum  Silanum,  per  adfinitatem 
conexum  Germanico,  quia  Silani  filia  Neroni  vetustissimo  liberorum 
eius  pacta  erat,  praefeceratque  Cn.  Pisonem,  ingenio  violentum  et 
obsequi  ignarum,  insita  ferocia.  .  .  . 

Confirmation  of  these  dark  suspicions  is  supplied  by  Piso's 
own  judgment,  "nee  dubium  se  habebat  delectum,  qui  Suriae 
imponeretur  ad  spes  Germanic!  coercendas;"  still  another  link 
in  the  chain  of  evidence  against  Tiberius  is  the  hint  of  opinion 
prevalent  at  the  time, 

Ann.,  II.  43.  Credidere  quidam  data  et  a  Tiberio  occulta 
mandata, 

and  the  implication  of  Livia  in  the  cruel  secret, 

et  Plancinam  haud  dubio  Augusta  monuit  aemulatione  muliebri 
Agrippinam  insectando. 

The  clause  introduced  by  nam  which  follows  makes  plausible 
the  facts  just  stated  by  relating  the  private  feeling  in  the 
Emperor's  household.  The  "mandata"  mentioned  above  are 
plainly  hinted  at  again  in  chapter  55: 

At  Cn.  Piso,  quo  properantius  destinata  inciperet. 

Again  in  III.  16,  the  existence  of  such  instructions  is  supported 
by  a  discreetly  impersonal  statement  under  the  guise  of  perfect 
impartiality  and  the  strictest  regard  for  historical  accuracy. 

Audire  me  memini  ex  senioribus  visum  saepius  inter  manus 
Pisonis  libellum,  quem  ipse  non  vulgaverit;  sed  amicos  eius  dictita- 
visse,  litteras  Tiberi  et  mandata  in  Germanicum  contineri,  et 
destinatum  promere  apud  patres  principemque  arguere  ni  elusus  a 
Seiano  per  vana  promissa  fore;  nee  ilium  sponte  extinctum,  verum 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  43 

immlsso  percussore.  Quorum  neutrum  adseveraverim;  neque 
tamen  occulere  debui  narratum  ab  iis,  qui  nostram  ad  inventutem 
duraverunt. 

In  the  words  of  the  dying  Germanicus,  another  allusion  to  the 
same  subject  is  found  in  II.  71,  7:  "fingentibusque  scelesta 
mandata  aut  non  credent  hominus  aut  non  ignoscent."  Here 
"fingentibus"  and  the  epithet  "scelesta"  are  in  keeping  with 
the  loyal  belief  of  Germanicus;  and  yet  the  last  words,  "aut  non 
excusent"  leave  room  even  in  his  mind  for  doubt.  A  speech 
reported  to  be  from  the  lips  of  Domitius  Celer  offers  assurance 
to  Piso  in  the  following  words. 

II.  'J1,  6.  est  tibi  Augustae  conscientia,  est  Caesaris  favor,  sed 
in  occulta;  et  perisse  Germanicum  nuUi  iactantius  maerent  quam  qui 
maxime  laetantur. 

This  speech,  from  its  rhetorical  color  and  diction,  may  safely 
be  considered  as  a  Tacitean  invention.  Public  sentiment  also 
at  the  funeral  rites  of  Germanicus  recognizes  this  suspicion, 
II.  73.  "suorum  insidiis  externas  inter  gentes  occidisse." 

From  the  passages  quoted  it  will  be  seen  that  in  the  pres- 
entation of  this  one  bit  of  evidence  against  Tiberius  and  Livia, 
Tacitus  exhausted  every  source  of  indirect  information:  the 
belief  in  actual  instructions  to  Piso  current  at  the  time  of  his 
appointment  over  Syria  (chapter  43);  the  knowing  talk  of  old 
men,  survivors  of  that  time,  heard  by  Tacitus  himself  (III.  16); 
the  allusions  more  or  less  definite  of  Piso's  friends  (III.  16; 
II.  77,  6);  opinion  general  at  Antioch  when  the  death  of 
Germanicus  was  the  one  absorbing  topic  (II.  73,  3);  the 
significant  words  wrung  from  the  lips  of  the  dying  hero, 
despite  his  fidelity  to  his  adoptive  father  (II.  11).  Nowhere 
perhaps  does  Tacitus  give  a  more  masterly  proof  of  the  art 
that  conceals  art  than  in  his  treatment  of  this  one  detail  of  the 
Germanicus  narrative.  Only  once  (chapter  55)  do  we  find 
a  trace  of  the  author's  personal  view;  and  yet  testimony  for  the 
existence  of  such  damning  evidence  against  Tiberius  is  found 
in  most  insidious  form  on  every  page. 


44  THE    LITERARY   WORK    OF    AMMIANUS. 

The  intricate  and  exhaustive  presentation  of  this  point  is 
another  instance  of  the  keenly  logical  insight  of  Tacitus.  Docu- 
ments that  contained  instructions  which  might  be  construed  as 
boding  ill  to  Germanicus  were  the  only  possible  proofs  of  the 
complicity  of  the  Emperor  in  the  crime  of  Piso,  if  crime  there 
were.  The  death  of  Piso,  by  his  own  hand,  related  as  a  simple 
historical  fact  (III.  15),  or,  as  suggested  in  immediate  sequence 
(III.  16),  by  an  emissary  from  the  palace,  a  report  originating 
among  his  intimates,  who,  if  any  one,  would  know  the  truth, 
and  his  silence  before  that  time,  removed  all  possibility  of 
adducing  verbal  testimony.  In  matters  of  such  public  note 
as  a  trial  in  the  senate,  the  insinuations  of  even  a  Tacitus  could 
find  no  place.  Matter  capable  of  being  construed  for  his 
purpose  lacking,  the  historian  must  content  himself  with 
developing  his  proofs  from  a  source  not  so  well  known  or  whose 
very  nature  allows  surmise  of  its  suppression.  The  only  phrase 
in  Piso's  farewell  letter  to  Tiberius  which  could  apply  to  the 
point  under  consideration  is  designedly  ambiguous  (III.  16) — 
"deos  immortales  testor,  vixisse  me,  Caesar,  cum  fide  adversum 
te  neque  alia  in  matrem  tuam  pietate,"  words  which  might  be 
interpreted  as  a  general  phrase,  or  charged  with  strong  sig- 
nificance to  one  in  the  secret.  The  presumptions  offered  by 
Tacitus  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  such  "mandata"  far  out- 
weigh the  negative  argument  to  the  contrary,  lying  in  the  fact 
that  no  such  papers  ever  came  to  light.  Whatever  be  its  legal 
status,  inference  in  such  cases  is  stronger  than  actuality  for 
producing  opinion,  Tacitus  could  not  reverse  the  verdict  of 
existing  records,  such  as  a  decree  of  the  senate;  but  by  instilling 
belief  in  the  possibility  of  evidence  suppressed  or  destroyed  he 
could  influence  the  decision  of  the  ages  yet  to  come  against  the 
Emperor  whom  he  hated.  Given  proof  of  collusion  between 
Tiberius  and  Piso,  and  Piso  involved  in  the  death  of  Ger- 
manicus, the  case  against  Tiberius  is  complete. 

The  process  of  inducing  the  belief  that  Germanicus  met  his 
death  through  poison,  administered  at  the  instigation  of  Piso, 
is  pursued  in  the  same  insidious  manner.     Germanicus  himself 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  45 

believed  implicitly  in  the  guilt  of  Piso;  we  have  specific  state- 
ments to  that  eiTect,  first  in  the  form  of  a  generally  accepted 
historical  fact,  which  the  historian  records  as  a  matter  of  course 
(11.  69,  saevam  vim  morbi  augebat  persuasio  veneni  a  Pisone 
accepti);  again  in  the  indirect  discourse,  carrying  with  it  the 
stronger  appeal  to  credence  that  personality  imparts.  The 
messengers  sent  by  Piso  are  looked  upon  as  spies  who  would 
pry  into  the  sick  man's  state  with  a  view  to  evil  symptom 
(II.  69,  ut  valetudinis  adversa  rimantes)  and  elicits  from 
Germanicus  expressions  of  indignation  (II.  70,  .  .  .  lenta 
videri  veneficia;  festinare  et  urguere  ut  legiones  solus  habeat. 
Sed  non  usque  eo  defectum  Germanicum  neque  praemia  caedis 
apud  interfectorem  mansura);  his  death  is  a  murder  (caedis) 
and  Piso  is  the  murderer  (interfector).  Again  in  the  speech 
made  by  Germanicus  when  the  end  approached,  Piso  is  branded 
as  his  destroyer  (II.  71,  .  .  .  ;  nunc  scelere  Pisonis  et  Plan- 
cinae  interceptus;  referatis  patri  ac  fratri,  quibus  acerbitatibus 
dilaceratus,  quibus  insidiis  circumventus  miserrimam  vitam 
pessima  morte  finierim).  That  the  belief  that  he  was  poisoned 
was  shared  in  by  the  friends  of  Germanicus  is  shown  by  the 
language  used  in  describing  the  cremation  of  the  body  at 
Antioch;  although  actual  results  left  the  question  open  (II. 
73,  .  .  .  praetulent  ne  veneficii  signa,  parum  constitit,  nam  ut 
quis  misericordia  in  Germanicum  et  praesumpta  suspicione  aut 
favore  in  Pisonem  pronior,  diversi,  interpretabantur).  The 
demand  made  by  Vitellius  and  Veranius  for  Martina,  famed  for 
her  skill  in  poisons,  assert  the  belief  of  these  friends  of  the 
deceased  Germanicus  in  the  theory  that  he  was  poisoned  (11. 
74,2^  .  .  .  ).  This  woman  Martina,  to  whose  name  is  attached 
a  phrase,  apparently  careless,  but  in  reality  full  of  meaning 
(Plancinae   percaram)    afterwards    died   under   circumstances 

25  Infamem  veneficiis  ea  in  provincia  et  Plancinae  percaram,  nomine  Martinam  in 
urbem  misit,  postulantibus  Vitellio  ac  Veranio  ceterisque.  Cf.  the  accusations  made 
by  the  same  friends  of  Germanicus,  III.  13,  where  the  substance  of  the  speech  made  by 
Vitellius  (multa  eloquentia  Vitelli)  is  produced  in  Oratio  Obliqua,  sacra  hinc  et  immo- 
lationibus  nefandas  ipsius  (Piso)  atque  Plancinae,  .  .  .  Postremo  ipsum  (Germanicus) 
devotionibus  et  veneno  peremisse. 


46  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

which  throw  a  strong  light  upon  the  impartial  statements  of 
Tacitus  as  to  the  presence  of  poison  in  the  body  of  Germanicus 
(III.  7,  .  .  .  Vulgatam  erat  missam,  ut  dixi,  a  Cn.  Sentio 
famosam  veneficiis  subita  morte  Brundisii  extinctam,  vene- 
numque  nodo  crimium  eius  occultatum,  nee  ilia  in  corpore  signa 
sumpti  exitii  reperta).  If  the  poison  left  no  traces  in  this  case 
(and  suicide  by  poison  is  the  inference)  what  need  was  there 
to  prove  its  presence  in  the  body  of  Germanicus?  A  carefully 
laid  train  of  circumstantial  evidence  brings  the  responsibility 
home  to  Piso  in  another  way.  Martina,  his  instrument,  was 
removed  (subita  morte)  before  he  returned  to  Rome  (III. 
7,  .  .  .  subdola  mora  scelerum  probationes  subverteret) ; 
recourse  to  magical  arts,  closely  connected  with  the  name  of  the 
veneficariae  is  reported  in  suggestive  relation  to  the  acts  of 
Piso. 

II.  69.  Et  reperiebantur  solo  ac  parietibus  erutae  humanorum 
corporum  reliquiae,  carmina  et  devotiones  et  nomen  Germanici 
plumbeis  tabulis  insculptum,  semusti  cineres  ac  tabo  obliti  aliaque 
malifica,  quis  creditur  animas  manibus  infernis  sacrari.^® 

The  death-bed  speech  of  Germanicus  (II.  71),  from  which 
extracts  have  already  been  given,  is  a  purely  rhetorical  bit  of 
writing;  but  the  passages  cited  above  are  evidence  of  the 
historian's  power  of  adapting  such  material  to  the  ends  of 
indirect  delineation.  The  parting  injunctions  to  Agrippina 
convey  hidden  but  unmistakable  reference  to  Tiberius  (II. 
72,  .  .  .  neu  regressa  in  urbem  aemulatione  potentiae  validi- 
ores  inritaret)  even  without  the  sentence  that  follows,  "haec 
palam,  alia  secreto,  per  quae  ostendere  credebatur  metum  ex 
Tiberio;"  even  in  the  fair  mind  of  Germanicus,  according 
to  the  conjectures  of  his  friends,  based  upon  his  dying  words 
and  actions,  lay  the  dark  foreboding  of  evil  intent  from  Tiberius 
toward  himself  and  his.  Other  points  in  this  speech  are 
better  noted  in  connection  with  the  narrative  of  Julian's  story 
in  Ammianus. 

^  Cf.  III.  13,  devotionibus  et  veneno  peremisse;  sacra  hinc  et  immolationes  nefandas. 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  47 

The  part  of  the  Germanicus  story  which  deals  with  the 
funeral  rites  and  attendant  circumstances  is  indisputably 
reproduced  from  a  laudatio  funebris;  a  form  of  literature  that 
by  this  time  had  come  to  conform  closely  to  the  rules  of 
rhetoric,  so  much  so  that  in  it  the  formal  theory  of  the  en- 
comium was  followed  as  a  matter  of  course.  A  comparison  of 
the  Laudationes  of  Germanicus,  as  found  in  Dio  Cassius 
(LVII.  i8),  Suetonius  (Cal.,  3  ff.),  and  Tacitus  (Ann.,  II.  72), 
make  a  common  source  obvious;  the  biographer  has  reproduced 
it  in  greater  detail,  as  befits  his  literary  theory;  the  historians 
have  dealt  with  it  more  succinctly,  each  in  his  characteristic 
method. 

The  Tacitean  treatment,  although  as  highly  encomiastic  in 
its  effect  as  that  of  either  Dio  or  Suetonius,  conforms  punctili- 
ously to  the  requirements  of  the  code  that  governs  histori- 
ography. As  far  as  the  tottoi  of  the  encomium  are  concerned, 
Tacitus  carefully  chooses  only  such  as  would  throw  light  on 
contemporary  or  succeeding  historical  events,  the  family  life 
of  Germanicus,  his  character,  achievements,  fate.  He  dwells 
most  forcibly  on  the  second,  for  it  was  by  this,  if  at  all,  that 
Germanicus  must  have  influenced  the  course  of  history.  Of 
details  of  his  physical  appearance,  possessions,  favorite  pur- 
suits, our  author  gives  us  nothing,  for  these  lie  wholly  within 
the  realm  of  biography,  and  are  extraneous  to  history.  But  it 
is  not  the  careful  culling  out  of  biographical  material  that 
distinguishes  the  Tacitean  form  of  this  laudatio;  Dio  Cassius 
has  adopted  an  equally  critical  view  of  that  point.  The 
reconciliation  of  the  introduction  of  any  purely  encomiastic 
passages  into  a  work  avowedly  historical,  both  in  form  and 
aim,  is  the  delicate  problem  of  literary  discrimination,  ignored 
by  Dio  Cassius,  but  solved  by  the  Latin  historian  with  admir- 
able success.  Public  feeling  is  an  essential  part  of  history;  the 
attitude  of  the  court,  the  mob,  the  world  at  large  as  known  at 
the  epoch  whose  events  are  recorded,  the  judgment  or  surmises 
of  friends  or  enemies  of  contemporaries  or  the  immediately 
succeeding  generation — the  faithful  setting  down  of  all  of  these 


48  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

falls  to  the  historian,  and  it  is  by  means  of  this  recognized 
function  of  historiography,  that  Tacitus  contrives  to  insert 
material  for  panegyric  without  apparent  violation  of  his  own 
literary  theory,  and  without  breaking  the  continuity  of  the 
historical  narrative.  By  throwing  his  encomium  of  Ger- 
manicus  into  the  indirect  discourse,  he  differentiates  its  use  from 
a  biographical  characteristic  to  a  legitimate  instrument  of 
historiography.  That  all  the  necessary  tottol  are  preserved 
will  be  seen  by  introduction  of  the  text.  No  Trpoofifj^iov  is 
needed  in  an  historical  narrative,  and  the  7eVo9  has  already 
been  given  (I.  33);  avarpocf)')]  would  not  come  within  the  scope 
of  history,  belonging  to  a  period  previous  to  that  of  his  appear- 
ance as  a  public  personage.  We  should  expect,  as  stated  above, 
an  emphasizing  of  character  through  the  Tr/aa^et?,  and  such  is 
the  case. 

The  first  motif  for  the  introduction  of  a  laudatory  theme  is 
found  in  the  widespread  sorrow  at  the  death  of  Germanicus 
(II.  72). 

Neque  multo  post  extinguitur,  ingenti  luctu  provinciae  et  cir- 
cumiacentium  populorum;  indoluere  externae  nationes  regesque. 

This  magnifies  his  memory  by  showing  the  esteem  in  which 
he  was  held  abroad,  and  an  elaboration  of  the  reasons  follows 
almost  as  a  matter  of  course  in  point  of  fact,  it  might  have  been 
almost  as  a  matter  of  course.  In  point  of  fact,  it  might  have 
been  written  In  the  oratio  obllqua,  so  naturally  does  It  seem  to 
express  the  thoughts  of  those  mentioned  in  the  context. 

II.  72.  tanta  illi  comitas  in  socios,  mansuetudo  in  hostis; 
visuque  et  auditu  iuxta  venerabilis,  cum  magnitudineni  et  gravi- 
tatem  summae  fortunae  retineret,  invidiam  et  adrogantiam  effugerat. 

The  qualities  dwelt  upon  in  this  extract  come  obviously 
under  the  head  of  'n-pd^eif  el<i  aperaf  8iT]pr}iJieva<i.  Cic.  de  Or., 
II.  84,  343,  enumerates  comitas  and  mansuetudo  (dementia) 
among  other  qualities  calling  for  praise: 

Sunt  enim  aliae  virtutes  quae  videntur  in  moribus  homlnum,  et 
quadam    comitate    ac    beneficentia    positae  .  .  .  Nam    dementia^ 


THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF  AMMIANUS.  49 

iustitia,  benignitas  fides,  fortitudo  in  periculis  communibus  incunda 
est  auditu  in  laudationibus. 

A  further  comment  from  Cicero  is  illuminating  for  the  encomi- 
astic significance  of  "cum  magnitudinem  et  gravitatem 
summae  fortunae  retineret  invidiam  et  adrogantiam  aifugerat." 

De  Or.,  II.  84,  342.  quod  ipsa  virtus  in  earum  rerum  {i.  e.,  bona 
quae  fortuna  dat)  usu  ac  moderatione  maxime  cernitur,  tractanda 
in  laudationibus  etiam  haec  sunt  naturae  et  fortunae  bona,  in  quibus 
est  summa  laus;  non  exiulisse  se  in  potestate,  non  fuisse  insolentem  in 
pecunia,  non  se  praetulisse  aliis  propter  abundantiam  fortunae,  ut 
opes  et  copiae  non  superbiae  videantur  ac  lihidini,  sed  bonitati  ac 
moderationem  facultatem  et  materiam  dedisse}"^ 

This  apparently  simple  statement  of  facts  referring  to  the 
deep  grief  felt  for  the  fate  of  Germanicus  lies  quite  within  the 
scope  of  an  historical  work,  and  reflecting  as  it  does  a  general 
sentiment,  is  not  colored  by  the  personality  of  the  author. 
The  introduction  of  further  and  more  rhetorically  laudatory 
matter,  such  as  follows  in  chapter  73,  must  necessarily,  aside 
from  artistic  incongruities,  lay  the  historian  open  to  the  charge 
of  partiality.  It  is  to  avoid  both  possibilities,  that  Tacitus 
has  cast  this  matter,  as  before  noted,  in  the  oratio  obliqua;  its 
laudatory  character  is  frankly  acknowledged,  since  the  form 
of  presentation,  devoid  of  personal  suggestion  however  encomi- 
astic be  the  tone  or  feeling,  bars  all  possible  criticism  of  the 
author's  position. 

II.  73.  Funus  sine  imaginibus  et  pompa  per  laudes  ac  memoriam 
virtutum  eius  celebre  fuit. 

Then  follows  the  passage  whose  topics  reflect  most  clearly  the 
laudatio,  which  was  its  source. 

Et  erant,  qui  formam,  aetatem,  genus  mortis  ob  propinquitatem 
etiam  locorum,  in  quibus  interiit,  magni  Alexandri  fatis  adae- 
quarent,  nam  utrumque  corpore  decoro,  haud  multum  triginta  annos 
egressum,  suorum  insidiis  externas  inter  gentes  occidisse;  sed  hunc 
mitem  erga  amicos,  modicum  voluptatum,  uno  matrimonia,  certis 
"  Cf.  Amm.,  XXI.  16,  14;  Isoc.  Panath,  31  ff.,  especially  32. 


50  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

libertls  egisse,  neque  minus  proeliatorem;  etiam  si  temeritas  afuerlt, 
praepeditusque  sit  perculsas  tot  victoriis  Germanias  servitio 
premere.  Quod  si  solus  arbiter  rerum,  si  iure  et  nomine  regio 
fuisset,  tanto  promptius  adsecuturum  gloriam  militiae,  quantum 
dementia,  temperantia  ceteris  bonis  artibus  praestitisset. 

The  correspondence  of  the  points  in  this  passage  to  the  tottol  of 
the  ^acriXiKo<i  \6<yo^  is  too  obvious  to  require  specific  detail; 
we  would  call  attention  to  the  avyKpLmf  with  Alexander,  a 
character  constantly  referred  to  as  a  model  monarch  by  the 
writers  of  encomia.  Extant  panegyrics  show  that  this  king 
was  an  example  that  had  done  good  service  also  in  Roman 
laudatory  literature.  The  circumstances  of  the  death  of 
Germanicus,  as  instanced  in  the  text,  make  the  comparison  a 
natural  one,  and  the  emphasis  of  similarity  of  condition  is  used 
with  great  artistic  effect  to  throw  out  the  contrast  of  character. 
Germanicus  was  gentle,  temperate,  chaste — characteristics 
.to  which  the  well-known  faults  of  Alexander  lend  a  suitable 
relief.  He  was  yet  no  less  a  warrior,  but  without  the  rash  and 
inconsiderate  spirit  of  a  tyrant.  The  invidious  term,  "temer- 
itas," embodying  the  Roman  criticism  of  an  Alexander, 
deflects  still  more  the  balance  of  comparison  in  favor  of  Ger- 
manicus. The  last  sentence  (quod  si  solus  .  .  .)  seems  to 
have  some  correspondence  to  the  iiriXoyo^;  of  the  encomium, 
in  that  it  presents  in  summary  fashion  the  strongest  qualities 
of  the  subject,  into  which  an  appreciation  of  possibilities 
neutralized  by  conditions  enters.  This  element,  with  its 
prophetic  perspective,  possibly  supplies  the  place  of  the  apos- 
trophe to  a  dead  hero  which  was  the  general  conclusion  of  the 
epilogue,  and  thus  completes  the  list  of  encomiastic  topics  as 
formulated  by  the  rhetoricians  for  this  branch  of  epideictic 
literature. 

The  utilization  of  a  people's  grief  as  an  instrument  of  praise 
for  the  dead  is  found  again  in  the  beginning  of  Book  III,  where 
the  scene  is  Rome.  There  is  much  amplification  of  detail;  the 
merits  of  Germanicus  must  be  extolled  by  the  expression  of 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF  AMMIANUS.  5I 

sorrow  and  regard  felt  by  a  whole  people.  There  was  no  affec- 
tation of  regret  (III.  2,  .  .  .  quippe  aberat  adulatio),  and  the 
clause  of  explanation  that  follows  imputes  to  the  Roman 
public  the  author's  own  power  of  searching  hearts  and  judging 
motives  (gnaris  omnibus  lactam  Tiberio  Germanici  mortem 
male  dissimulari).  Thus  amidst  the  description  of  the  mourn- 
ing of  the  city  Tacitus  skilfully  inserts  an  artifice  to  increase 
the  odium  already  directed  against  Tiberius.  Further  contri- 
butions to  the  same  effect  are  found  in  chapter  3,  containing 
the  account  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  Emperor  and  his 
mother  (Tiberius  atque  Augusta  publico  abstinuere),  for 
which  with  apparent  impartiality  two  supposititious  causes  are 
offered,  one  fair,  the  other  adverse  (inferius  maiestate  sua  rati, 
si  palam  lamentatentur,  an  ne  omnium  oculis  vultum  eorum 
scrutantibus  falsi  intellegerentur) ;  to  the  same  purpose  is 
the  suggestion  of  coercion  brought  to  bear  upon  the  aged 
Antonia,  whose  absence  from  the  scene  of  mourning  was  also 
matter  of  note  (crediderim  Tiberio  et  Augusta,  qui  domo  non 
excedebant,  cohibitam  ut  par  maeror  et  matris  exemplo  avia 
quoque  et  patrius  attineri  viderentur).  Of  analogous  tendency 
too  is  the  cehsure  of  Tiberius  implied  in  the  contrast  noted  by 
men  between  the  honors  paid  to  Drusus  by  Augustus  and  the 
last  rites  of  Germanicus. 

III.  5.  Fuere  qui  publici  funeris  pompa  requirerent  com- 
pararentque  quae  in  Drusum  patrem  Germanici  honora  et  magnifica 
Augustus  fecisset. 

Their  language  is  reported  in  vivid  rhetoric,  with  considerable 
dwelling  on  detail;  probable  excuses  for  the  discrepancy  are 
anticipated  and  deprecated. 

Tiberius's  suppression  of  further  lament  and  comment,  while 
serving  the  purely  historical  purpose  of  showing  his  attitude, 
is  employed  by  Tacitus  with  consummate  skill  to  add  testi- 
mony to  the  esteem  in  which  Germanicus  was  held  by  the  , 
Romans. 


52  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

III.  6,  .  .  .  multos  inlustrium  Romanorum  ob  rem  publicam 
obisse,  ^^  neminem  tarn  flagranti  desiderio  celebratum. 

Thus  does  the  one  whom  Tacitus  would  have  us  look  upon  as 
the  worst  foe  of  the  dead  hero  pay  homage  to  his  memory. 

The  death  of  Julian  described  in  Book  XXV  of  Ammianus's 
Histories,  although  differing  widely  in  circumstances  from  that 
of  Germanicus,  has  received  at  the  hands  of  Ammianus  a  treat- 
ment recalling  in  some  of  its  features  the  Tacitean  record 
which  has  just  been  under  consideration. 

An  oracle  presages  the  death  of  Germanicus  (II.  54)  at  Colo- 
phon. 

Et  ferebatur  per  ambages,  ut  mos  oraculis,  maturum  exitium 
cecinisse. 

The  genius  publicus,  seen  by  Julian  at  his  elevation  to  the 
throne,  appears  to  him  again  during  the  night  previous  to  his 
last  battle. 

Am.  XXV.  2,  3.  ipse  autem  ad  sollicitatam  suspensamque 
quietem  paulisper  protractus  cum  somno,  ut  solebat,  depulso,  ad 
aemulationem  Caesaris  lulii  quaedam  sub  pellibus  scribens  obscuro 
noctis  altitudine,  sensus  cuiusdam  philosophi  teneretur,  vidit 
squalidius  ut  confessus  est  proximis,  speciem  illam  Genii  publici, 
quam,  cum  ad  Augustum  surgeret  culmen,  conspexit  in  Galliis, 
velata  cum  capite  Cornucopia  per  aulaea  tristius  discedentem. 

Scorning  alarm,  Julian  offers  supplication  to  the  gods,  and  then 
beholds  a  celestial  portent, 

XXV.  2,  4.  flagrantissimam  facem  cadenti  similem  visam,  aeris 
parte  sulcata,  evanuisse  existimavit. 

This  is  interpreted  by  Etruscan  haruspices  as  boding  ill  fortune 
in  the  coming  battle.  The  Emperor  disregards  the  omen,  and 
at  daybreak  marches  against  the  enemy.  He  is  fatally 
wounded  in  the  first  onset,  is  carried  to  his  tent  and  there  dies. 
We  have  considered  the  deathbed  speech  of  Germanicus; 

*'  An  implied  ffiyKpuns  of  sweeping  force. 


THE    LITERARY  WORK  OF   AMMIANUS.  §3 

a  like  feature  Is  found  in  Ammianus,  and  the  phrases  of  the 
setting  in  the  two  passages  form  appropriate  parallels. 

Ann.,  II.  71,   I.     Adsistentes  amicos  in  hunc  modum  adloquitur. 
Am.,  XXV.  3,   15.     Julianus,  in  tabernaculo  iacens  circumstante 
adlocutus  est  demissos  et  tristes. 

Each  in  his  dying  speech  refers  to  his  premature  death,  Ger- 
manicus  with  sorrow  and  indignation,  Julian  as  becomes  the 
philosopher  (haec  placide  dicta  21). 

Ann.,  II.  71.  iustus  mihi  dolor  etiam  adversus  deos  esset  quod 
me  parentibus,  liberis  patriae  infra  inventam  praematuro  exitu 
raperent. 

A  reference  to  military  renown  is  included  in  "quondam 
florentem  et  tot  bellorum  superstitem." 

The  corresponding  passage  in  Ammianus  would  suggest  to 
the  attentive  and  reflective  reader  almost  a  comparison  with 
the  fate  of  Germanicus. 

Amm.,  XXV.  3,  19.  Ideoque  sempiternum  veneror  numen  quod 
non  clandestinis  insidiis  nee  longa  morborum  asperitate  sed  in  medio 
cursu  florentium  gloriarum  hunc  merui  clarum  e  mundo  digressum. 

With  these  points  resemblance  between  the  speeches  ceases; 
basing  conclusions  on  the  similarities  noted,  it  is  not  unreason- 
able to  say  that  Ammianus  had  the  Tacitean  passage  in  mind; 
the  diametrically  opposed  circumstances  precluded  further 
coincidence  in  outward  treatment.  Each  speech  has  duality 
of  intention  suited  to  the  exigencies  of  the  setting,  and  each 
is  equally  a  product  of  rhetoric.^^  In  the  interpretation  of  a 
common  truism  men's  dying  utterances  reveal  the  truth  and 
command  belief;  therefore  to  the  obsession  of  their  last  words 
the  human  mind  is  most  open.  Both  historians  have  taken 
advantage  of  this  maxim  of  humanity,  and,  in  each  case,  that 
which  seems  a  clear  glass,  through  which  shines  the  feelings  and 
personality  of  the  speaker  is,  in  reality,  but  a  mirror,  reflecting 

'^  Whatever  be  the  conclusions  of  editorial  authority  on  the  authenticity  of  such 
speeches  in  Ammianus,  this  one  certainly  reads  as  if  made  to  order. 


54  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

the  author's  own  conception  of  the  truth.  The  Tacitean  speech 
does  not  characterize;  after  so  much  characterization  in  the 
past,  addition  here  would  be  needless;  its  twofold  object  was 
to  stir  sympathy  for  Germanicus  and  suspicion  against  Tiberius. 
Ammianus,  without  prejudice  against  superfluity,  wished  in 
the  speech  which  he  gives  to  glorify  Julian  both  as  Emperor 
and  philosopher;  or  it  might  be  said,  he  here  interprets,  in 
Julian's  own  words,  the  character  which  it  has  been  his  aim  to 
reveal  by  actions  and  glorify  by  comment  in  the  preceding 
narrative.  The  whole  tone  of  the  speech,  as  well  as  specific 
passages,  serve  to  impress  the  calm  high  philosophy  of  the 
dying  Emperor. 

The  introduction  of  passages  from  the  speech  itself  will  best 
show  this. 

Amm.,  XXV.  3,  15.  Advenit,  a  socii,  nunc  abeundi  tempus  e 
vita  impendio  tempestivum,  quam  reposcenti  naturae,  ut  debitor 
bonae  lidei  redditurus  exulto,  non,  ut  quidam  opinantur,  adflictus 
et  maerens,  philosophorum  sententia  generali  perdoctus,  quantum 
corpore  sit  beatior  animus,  et  contemplans,  quotiens  condicio  melior 
a  deteriore  secernitur,  laetandum  esse  potius  quam  dolendum,  illud 
quoque  advertens  quod  etiam  dii  caelestes  quibusdam  piissimis, 
mortem  tanquam  summum  praemium  persolverunt. 

The  modest  tone  of  the  next  sentence  is  a  very  artistic  touch. 

XXV.  3,  16.  Munus  autem  id  mihi  delatum  optime  scio,  ne  diffi- 
cultatibus  succumberem,  arduis,  neve  me  proviciam  unquam  aut 
prosternam  expertus  quod  dolores  omens  ut  insultant  ignavis,  ita 
persistentibus  cadunt. 

Thus  does  Ammianus  make  effort  to  offset  and  prevent  the 
possibly  prejudicial  effect  of  the  arrogantly  virtuous  summary 
of  Julian's  life  that  follows. 

Nee  me  gestorum  paenitet,  aut  gravis  flagitu  recordatio  stringit, 
vel  cum  in  umbra  et  angulis  amendarer,  vel  post  principatum 
susceptum,  quem  tanquam  a  cognatione  caelitum  defluentem 
immaculatum,  ut  existimo,  conservavi,  et  civilia  moderatius  regens, 
exanimatis    rationibus    bella    inferens,    et    repellens,    tametsi    pro- 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  55 

speritas  simul  utilitasque  consultorum  non  ubique  concordent, 
quoniam  coeptorum  eventus  superae  sibi  vindicant  potestates, 
reputans  autem  iusti  esse  finem  imperi  obcedientium  commodum  et 
salutem,  ad  tranquilliora  semper,  ut  nostis,  propensior  fui,  licentiam 
omnem  actibus  meis  exterminans,  rerum  corrupticem  et  morum, 
gaudensque  abeo  gestiensque  ubicumque  me  velut  imperiosa  parens, 
consideratis  periculis,  obiecit  res  publica,  steti  fundatus,  turbines 
calcare  fortuitorum  adsuefactus. 

Another  characteristically  philosophic  passage  is  found  near 
the  close. 

(19)  Aequo  enim  iudicio  iuxta  timidus  est  et  ignavus  qui,  cum  non 
oportet,  mori  desiderat  et  qui  refugiat  cum  sit  opportunum. 

The  concluding  passage  breathes  forth  the  highest  feelings  of 
moderation  and  patriotism. 

(20)  Super  imperatore  vero  creando  caute  reticeo  ne  per  impru- 
dentiam  dignum  praeteream,  aut  nominatum  quem  habilem  reor, 
anteposito  forsitan  alio,  in  discrimen  ultimum  trudam,  ut  alumnus 
autem  rei  publicae  frugi,  opto  bonum  post  me  reperiri  rectorem. 

The  intention  of  the  speech  as  regards  the  glorification  of 
Julian's  philosophy,  and  incidentally,  by  the  summarization  of 
his  life  and  virtues,  his  royal  career,  is  obvious  enough.  Con- 
spicuous is  the  continuance  of  the  first  theme  in  the  remaining 
divisions  of  chapter  3  (21-23).  The  lofty  soul  of  the  phi- 
losopher regarded  death  with  calm  disdain;  but  Julian,  the 
tender  friend,  weeps  for  the  fate  of  another  (acriterque  amici 
casum  ingemuit  qui  elate  ante  contempserat  suum).  He 
gently  chides  his  weeping  friends,  and  enters  into  a  discussion 
on  the  sublimity  of  the  soul  with  intricate  logic,  and  thus  en- 
gaged, passes  away  (vita  facilius  est  absolutus).  It  is  evident 
that,  up  to  this  point,  the  historian  is  animated  by  the  strongest 
desire  to  depict  through  words  and  actions  the  lofty  and  sus- 
tained spirit  of  the  dying  Julian,  personal  comment  being  so 
rare  as  to  form  a  marked  contrast  to  the  author's  well-known 
practice. 

A  noticeable  shift  in  theory  follows;  for  with  the  words,  vita 


56  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

facillus  est  absolutus,  Ammlanus  glides  Into  an  open  laudatlo 
funebris,  so  closely  adhering  to  the  most  rhetorical  type,  that 
it  might  have  been  delivered  over  the  Emperor's  dead  body 
almost  without  alteration.  Such  elogla  are  a  characteristic 
feature  of  the  History  of  Ammianus.  He  introduces  them  at 
the  death  of  each  prominent  personage;  they  seem  to  represent 
to  him  the  final  stamp  of  the  translation  of  these  from  private 
individuals  into  the  universality  of  history.  Incongruous  as 
these  elogia  seem  with  the  annalistic  form  chosen  by  him  for 
his  work,  they  do  not  surprise,  for  the  reader  of  Ammianus 
cannot  fail  to  be  impressed  with  the  elasticity  of  the  author's 
theory  of  historiography,  if  indeed  any  such  was  ever  formu- 
lated even  in  his  own  mind.  His  own  nature,  incurably  sub- 
jective, led  him  to  epideictic  methods;  wherever  he  restrained 
his  inclinations  in  that  direction,  and  adopted  less  obvious 
means  of  portraiture,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  strong 
Taciteari  reminiscence  working  upon  him.  Here,  at  least, 
his  admiration  for  the  hero  Emperor  so  far  overbalanced  that 
felt  for  the  historian,  that  all  regard  for  historical  theory  is 
flung  to  the  winds,  and  Ammianus  becomes  a  panegyrist  pure 
and  simple.  The  incongruity  of  this  has  been  already  noted; 
one  feels  the  transition  from  the  attempt  at  characterization 
through  the  last  words  and  actions  of  the  Emperor  to  this 
rhetorical  laudatlo  as  almost  absurd.  Its  presence  is  noted  like 
a  patch  upon  a  fair  garment.  Compare  with  its  bald  insertion 
the  laudatio  of  Germanicus,  so  artfully  interwoven  by  Tacitus 
into  his  narrative  that  we  receive  it  as  a  bit  of  history.  In 
Ammianus  the  laudatio  is  a  biography  in  brief,  a  detached 
passage  of  absolutely  personal  information  concerning  Julian, 
and  could  be  removed  in  entirety  without  affecting  in  the 
slightest  degree  the  record  of  historical  events. 

This  will  best  be  shown  by  a  presentation  of  the  text. 

XXV.  3,  23.  Quibus  ideo  iam  silentibus  (i.  e.,  the  weeping  friends 
by  the  bedside)  ipse  cum  Maximo  et  Prisco  philosophis  super 
animorum  sublimitate  perplexius  disputans,  hiante  latius  suifossi 
lateris    vulnere,    et    spiritum    tumore    cohibente    venarum,    epota 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  57 

gelida  aqua,  quam  petiit  medio  noctis  horrore,  vita  facilius  est 
absolutus  anno  aetatis  altero  et  tricesimo,  natur  apud  Constanti- 
nopolim,  a  pueritia  usque  parentis  obitu  destitutus  Constant!,  quem 
post  fratis  Constantini  excessum  inter  Complures  alios  turba 
consumpsit  imperii  successorum,  et  Basilina  matre,  iam  inde  a 
maioribus  nobili. 

The  encomium  passage  begins  in  most  obvious  fashion  with 
the  words  "anno  aetatis,"  continuing  through  the  remaining 
part  of  3  and  all  of  4.     Chapter  5  opens  as  follows : 

Nee  fuit  post  hec  lamentis  aut  fletibus  locus.  Corpore  enim 
curato  pro  copia  rerum  et  temporis,  ut  ubi  ipse  olim  statuerat, 
conderetur,  principio  lucis  secutae,  quae  erat  quintum  Kalendas 
lulias,  hostibus  ex  omni  latere  circumfusis,  coUecti  duces  exercitus, 
advocatisque  legionum  principiis  et  turmarum,  super  creando 
principe  consultabant. 

It  is  evident  that  the  placing  of  chapter  5  immediately  after 
the  words  "vita  facilius  est  absolutus"  renders  the  historical 
sequence  perfect,  and  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  in  the  con- 
tinuity of  events. 

The  intervening  passage  is  a  /3ao-tXt/<;o9  Xo'709,  conforming 
to  the  strictest  rhetorical  rules.  No  proem  is  found  here,  as 
that  has  been  already  given  (XVI.  3).  The  yevo^  therefore  is 
entered  upon  immediately,  a  topic  universally  given  by 
rhetoricians  as  the  second  heading  under  encomium.  Accord- 
ing to  Apthonius,^^  this  division  may  embrace  four  topics, 
eOvoi;,  7raT/3t9,  irpoyovot,  irarepef.  Ammianus  has  in  this  case 
touched  on  all,  and  dwells  especially  on  the  evyeveta  (iam  inde 
a  maioribus  nobili).  The  early  training  (avarpo^-^)  of  his  hero 
is  also  omitted,  save  by  indirect  reference,  since  much  has  been 
already  said  on  the  subject  in  previous  passages.  A  sweeping 
laudation  of  Julian  in  general  (XXV.  4,  i.  Vir  profecto 
heroicis  connumerandus,  ingeniis,  claritudine  rerum  coalita 
maiestate  conspicuus)  is  followed  by  a  presentation  of  his 
deeds  from  the  point  of  view  of  aperai,  a  classification  formal- 
ized by  Ammianus  himself, 

32  Sp.   III.    371,   27  ff- 


58  THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

XXV.  4,  I.  cum  enim  sint,  ut  sapientes  definiuut,  virtutes 
quattuor  praecipuae,  temperantia,  prudentia,  iustitia,  fortitudo, 
eisque  accedentes  extrinsecus  aliae,  scientia  rei  militarise  auctoritaSy 
felicitas  atque  liberalitas,  intento  studio  coluit  omnes  ut  singulas.'^ 

These  additional  items  to  the  Socratic  virtues  are,  it  will  be 
remembered,  found  also  in  Cicero's  praise  of  Pompey  (Pro 
Imperio  28).  "Fortuna"  finds  an  admirable  explanation  from 
the  Roman  point  of  view  in  Cic.  de  Or.,  II.  85,  347.^^ 

Neque  tamen  ilia  non  ornant,  habiti  honores,  decreta  virtutis 
praemia  res  gestae  iudiciis  hominum  comprobatae;  in  quibus  etiam 
felicitatem  ipsam  deorum  immortalium  iudicio  tribui  laudationis  est. 

LIberalitas  is  an  outworking  of  the  virtue  ^iXavdpcoTria^  added 
in  Greek  encomium  either  as  a  separate  virtue,  or  a  combi- 
nation of  all  virtues. 

To  review  briefly  the  passage  under  the  author's  own 
categories,  we  have  first  (5,  6)  the  facts  praised  under  the  head 
of  temperantia,  of  which  he  makes  castitas  a  second  division 
(2,  3)  while  temperantia  In  general  Is  treated  In  4,  5,  6.  Julian's 
moderation  and  self-denial,  treated  with  rhetorical  elaboration 
and  fullness  of  detail,  receive  final  Impress  from  a  poetic  <Tv<yKpi(Tt<i^ 

(6)  Et  si  nocturna  lumina  inter  quas  lucubrabat  potuissent  voces 
ullae  testari,  profecto  ostenderant  inter  hunc  et  quosdam  princlpes 
multum  interesse  quern  norant  voluptatibus  ne  ad  necessitatem 
quidem  indulslsse  naturae." 

A  still  more  artificial  working  In  of  the  same  thought  Is  found 
in  the  Actio  Gratiarum  luliano  of  Claudius  Mamertinus 
(Baehrens,  XII.  Panegyrlcl  Latini,  p.  254),  where  would-be 
rulers  of  unholy  memory  are  offered  by  Providence  the  power 

^  Ammianus  repeats  the  name  of  each  virtue  at  the  opening  of  the  passage  devoted 
to  it,  going  back  to  first  principles.  Cf.  the  precepts  of  Menander  (Sp.  II.  372,  14  ff.)- 
XPV  Si  yiyviiXTKeiv  Kal  tpvXaT'reiv  rb  irapdyyeXfm  Sri  Srav  /jJWtjs  inb  Ke<pa\alov  fjxrapalveiv 
els  Ke^dXaiov,  del  wpoifui^eaOai  irepl  oi  jU^XXeu  ^xf'P"''  ^''"^  irpoaeKTiKdv  rbv  a.Kp<Ta.Ti}v  ipydorj 
Kal  n^  ^dj  \av6dveiv  fiijdi  KXivTeffdai  tQv  Ke(Pa\aiuv  ttjv  ^■f)T'r)<nv. 

^  Menander  (Sp.  III.  376,  25)  formally  recognizes  ti^x'?  in  Greek  encomium. 
fivTjfwvejiffeii  5^  //.erd.  rovro  rijs  rixi)^,  X^wc  Sir  (rvfiirapo/iapTeTv  5i  (oiKeiv  i<p  Airaffi  ko. 
/jipd^eci  Kal  Xdyois  ry  /3a<riXe?  ry  fieydXtp  t6xV  Xafiirpa. 

«  Cf.  XXIV.  4,  26,  27;  XXV.  2,  2  ff. 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF  AMMIANUS.  59 

to  reign  as  Emperor,  under  conditions  such  as  concur  with 
Julian's  life. 

At  nunc  ultro  vobis  potestas  regnandi  datur  ut  ea  quae  lulianus 
conditione  regnetis,  ut  pro  omnium  otio  die  noctuque  vigiletis,  et 
cum  domini  vocemini,  libertati  civium  serviatis,  saepius  proelium 
quam  prandium  capessatis,  hihil  unquam  auferatis  et  ultro  omnibus 
largiamini,  nulli  gratificemini,  in  neminem  saeviatis,  toto  in  orbe 
terrarum  nullius  virginis  fama  violetur,  sit  lectulus  etiam  sine 
concessis  et  legitimis  voluptatibus  VestaHum  toris  purior,  aestate 
Alamannicum  pulverem  hieme  pruinam  Thraciae  intectis  verticibus 
perferatis. 

Julian's  vigils  and  care  for  camp  and  soldiers  are  strong 
material  for  encomium;^®  labors  for  the  sake  of  others  are 
especially  noted  for  praise  in  Latin  laudatio. 

Cic.  de  Or.  85,  346.  Gratissima  autem  laus  eorum  factorum 
habetur,  quae  suscepta  videntur  a  viris  fortibus  sine  emolumento 
ac  praemio;  quae  vero  etiam  cum  labore  copiam  ad  laudandum 
quod  et  dici  ornatissime  possunt,  et  audiri  facillime.  Ea  enim 
denique  virtus  est  praestantis  viri,  quae  est  fructuosa  alliis,  ipsi  aut 
lahoriosa,  aut  periculosa,  aut  certe  gratuita. 

Evidences  of  prudentia  (71)  are  so  many  that  it  will  be 
necessary  to  cite  a  few  only;  this  paragraph  is  concise  and  anti- 
thetical, contrasting  favorably  with  the  usual  involved  style 
of  Ammianus,  and  iustitia  (8,  9)  receives  treatment  of  a 
similar  kind. 

Fortitudo  (10)  is  shown  by  deeds  in  war  and  endurance  of 
hardships.  The  use  of  ipse  and  suo  {ipse  trucem  hostem  ictu 
confecit  audacter  congressus  ac  nostros  cedentes  obiecto 
pectore  suo  aliquotiens  cohibuit  solus)  recalls  the  injunction  of 
Menander  (Sp.  III.  p.  374,  24).  on  auro?  rjv  6  SiaTTaroyLiei/o?, 
avT(K  0  cTTpaTTjyaiv,  auro?  o  rbv  Kaipbv  T'^?  fioXrj^  evKfyiffKcov  k.  t.  X.^^ 

^  Occasions  where  Ammianus  emphasizes  this  quality  are  frequent.  Cf.  XXIV.  3, 
9;  3,  11;  XXIII.  5,  24  (here  the  praise  is  voiced  by  the  army,  nihil  periculosum  fore  vel 
arduum  clamitabat  sub  imperatore  plus  sibi  laboris  quam  gregariis  indicente);  XVII. 
2,  3;  I,  2.     To  these  add  Julian's  speech  to  the  soldiers,  XX.  8,  6. 

'^  Cf.  Quint.,  III.  7,  16,  gratiora  esse  audientibus  quae  solus  aut  primus  aut  certe 
cum  paucis  fecisse  dicetur. 


6o  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

Scientia  rex  militaris  (ii)  is  declared  from  the  outcome  of 
sieges  and  battle,  skilful  marshalling  and  encamping,  in  concise 
summary.  The  presentation  of  these  four  heads,  prudentia, 
iustitia,  fortitude,  scientia  rei  militaris  is  in  its  very  summar- 
izing an  instance  of  encomiastic  theory;  facts  of  universal 
knowledge  are  thus  to  be  presented;  these  deeds  of  Julian  are 
so  well  known  and  so  manifold  {prudentiae  eius  indicia  vel 
plurima  .  .  .  quibus  autem  iustitiae  inclaruit  bonis,  multa 
significant — Fortitudinem  crebritas  certaminum — Castrensium 
negotiarum  scientiam  plura  declarant  et  notd)  that  they  need 
no  narration,  merely  comprehensive  reference. 

Auctoritas  (12),  a  word  which  seems  to  have  no  single 
equivalent  in  the  Greek  encomium,  may  possibly  have  attained 
its  position  in  the  laudatio  of  the  general  (for  it  is  here  that  it 
seems  to  have  its  proper  place)  by  transference  of  one  of  the 
requirements  laid  down  for  the  symboleutic  orator,  when  ora- 
tory came  to  be  weighed  as  one  of  the  factors  that  made 
for  military  success.  This  is  the  r)6LKr}  iria-Ttt  of  Aristotle 
(Rhet.,  II.  i)  dependent  on  the  (f>povr)ai^,  aperr),  evvoia  of  the 
orator  for  its  force  on  an  audience.  A  Roman  recognition  is 
given  in  Quintilian,  III.  8,  48. 

Multum  refert  etiam  quae  sit  persona  suadentis;  quia  anteacta 
vita,  si  illustris  fuit,  aut  clarius  genus,  aut  aetas,  aut  fortuna  affert 
expectationem.  .  .  .  et  quibusdam  suificit  auctoritas,  quosdam 
ratio  ipsa  aegre  tuetur. 

So  III.  8,  12.  Valet  autem  in  consiliis  auctoritas  plurimum. 
We  find  in  Tacitus  examples  that  are  identical  in  meaning  with 
the  above. 

Germ.  XI.     auctoritate  suadendi  magis  quam  iubendi  potestate. 
Hist.   I  45.     Sed  Othoni   nondum   auctoritas  inerat  ad  prohib- 
endum  scelus;  iubere  iam  poterat. 

Ann.  XV.  multa  auctoritate  quae  viro  militari  pro  facundia  erat. 
.Auctoritas  then  is  in  this  connection  personal  influence, 
derived  from  the  known  deeds  and  character  of  the  subject. 
So  Julian  is  both  feared  and  loved;  he  is  the  associate  of  his 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF  AMMIANUS.  6 1 

soldiers  in  the  field,  but  the  stern  punisher  of  the  laggard; 
mutineers  are  quelled  by  a  threat  to  leave  them;  especially 
does  the  last  instance  given  by  Ammianus  apply  (13): 

Denique  id  pro  multis  nosse  sufficiet;  exhortatum  eum  simplici 
contione  militem  Gallicanum  pruimis  adsuetum  et  Rheno,  pera- 
gratis  spatiis  regionum  extentis  per  tepentem  Assyriam  ad  usque 
confinia  traxisse  Medorum. 

This  is  the  auctoritas  of  Tacitus,  "quae  viro  militari  pro 
faciundia  erat;"  the  persuasive  power  of  the  soldier  orator 
whose  wisdom,  bravery,  good-will  have  been  proved  in  the 
past.  In  this  connection  also  we  have  the  force  of  summari- 
zation (id  pro  multis  nosse  sufficiet). 

Felicitas  (fortuna)  (14)  is  treated  with  strongly  encomiastic 
amplification. 

Felicitas  ita  eminuit  ut  ipsis  quodammoda  cervicibus  Fortunae 
aliquam  diu  bonae  gubernatricis  evectus  victoriosis  cursibus 
difficultates  superstaret  immensas  et  postquam  ex  occidua  plaga 
digressus  est,  et  quoad  fuit  in  terris,  quievere  nationes  omnes 
immobiles  ac  si  quodam  caduceo  leniente  mundana. 

Two  noteworthy  points  of  rhetorical  tradition  are  the 
emphasis  laid  on  the  hero's  triumph  over  obstacles  (difficul- 
tates immensas),  and  the  great  Influence  of  his  power  (quoad 
fuit  in  terris,  quievere  nationes  omnes  immobilis  ac  si  quodam 
caduceo  leniente  mundana).  For  the  last,  note  the  precept 
of  Menander  (Sp.  III.  377,  10  ff.) :  eV  Tourot?  e/oet?  .  .  .  otl  ov 
SeSoiKUfxev  fiap^dpovi  ov  TroXefiiou^i,  6')(ypoiTepov  rot?  ^aa-iXeayi  6Tr\oL<i 
rerei'x^iafxeda  rj  roi?  rei'yeaLV  ai  iroXea  .  .  .  avTol  fxr)  7ro\€fiovvr€<i, 
irapa  Se  rr)?  ^aatXeoyi  %€t/309  vifC(oar)^  Se^o/xevai. 

Mamertinus  speaks  of  Julian's  good  fortune  in  like  extrava- 
gant terms  (Bachrens,  p.  266,  6) : 

Cuius  unquam  divinior  felicitas  fuit?  Paulo  ante  a  liberatis 
Galliae  provinciis  lassus  inimi — corum  capitalium  apertls  armis  et 
occultis    insidiis    petebatur    in    pauculis    mensibus    divino    munere 


SZ  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

Libyae,  Europae  Asiaeque  regnator  est.  Quae  maiora  expecta- 
bimus  dei  praemia?     Quae  uberiora  dona  Fortunae? 

Here  too  the  magnifying  of  difficulties  adds  to  the  effect. 

Liheralitas  (15)  has  proofs  plurima  et  verissima.  Justice 
in  remitting  and  exacting  tribute  {fwpiov  8e  Trj<i  (f)i\avdpco7ria<i  77 
hiKaioavvr}^  Men.,  Sp.  III.  374,  28)  is  emphasized  among 
the  instances  selected.  Rhetorical  precept  covers  this  also 
(Men.,  Sp.  375,  21:  epel^  en  irepi  t(ov  (j>6p(ov  ov<i  eirurraTreL  .  .  . 
Tov  K00<f)(O9  Kul  pdSiay;  hvvaaOai  ^epeiv  Tois  v7roK6ov<i) .  Here  is 
also  the  implied  comparison  with  former  rulers  (quos  velut 
iure  vendidere  praeteritae  potestates),  Ammianus  using  in 
this  passage  the  crv<yKpL(Tt.<;  p.epLK'q^  wherever  the  figure  is 
employed. 

We  come  now  to  a  portion  of  the  elogium  which,  although 
seemingly  inconsistent  with  the  rules  of  Greek  encomium  as 
laid  down  by  the  technicians,  can  be  reconciled  to  the  same 
literary  form  when  adapted  to  historical  uses.  More  than 
once  does  Ammianus  vaunt  his  own  truthfulness  and  non- 
partisan attitude.  Perhaps  the  statement  made  in  XXX.  7,  i, 
in  connection  with  the  6logium  of  Gratianus  may  be  taken  as 
his  generalized  dictum  on  the  subject. 

Replicare  nunc  est  opportunum,  ut  aliquotiens  fecimus  et  ab 
ortu  primigenio  patris  huinsce  principis  ad  usque  ipsius  obitum  actus 
eius  discurrere  per  epilogos  breves,  nee  vitiorum  praetermisso 
discrimine  vel  bonorum,  quae  potestatis  amplitudo  monstravit, 
nudare  solita  semper  animorum  interna. 

Such  passages  as  the  one  with  which  we  are  now  about  to  deal, 
which  presents  the  vitia  of  Julian  (16-22),  satisfy  the  historical 
conscience  embodied  by  Ammianus  in  the  passage  last  quoted, 
and  reconcile  the  elogium  with  the  impartial  treatment  claimed 
for  history.  Frankly  as  the  faults  are  admitted,  wherever 
modification  is  possible  we  find  it.  Julian  is  "levioris  ingeni," 
but  this  he  corrected  by  most  excellent  training  (verum  hoc 
instituto  rectissimo  temperabat).  Unjust  decrees  are  admitted 
to  be  his  work,  but  the  highly  laudatory  prelude  to  the  admis- 


THE    LITERARY  WORK   OF   AMMIANUS.  6^ 

sion  makes  these  laws  insignificant  exceptions  (aestimari 
poterat,  ut  ipse  aiebat,  vetus  ilia  lustitia,  quam  offensam 
vitiis  hominum  Aratus  extollit  in  caelum  eo  imperante  redisse 
rursus  ad  terras). 

22  is  devoted  to  describing  his  personal  appearance,  the 
Kara  aw/jba  of  the  Greek  rhetorician,  the  forma  of  the  Roman 
laudatio.  The  beauty  and  brilliancy  of  his  eyes  are  often 
mentioned  in  Ammianus.  So  too  Claudius  Mamertinus 
(Baehr.,  p.  249)  "micantia'  sedereis  ignibus  lumina."  Tdxo<i 
and  potifir),  designated  divisions  of  the  topic  Kara  acofia^  find 
representation  in  the  phrase  unde  viribus  valebat  et  cursu. 

The  remainder  of  this  passage  (23-27)  deals  with  a  criticism 
of  Julian  made  openly  by  his  detractors,  (23)  Quoniam  eum 
obtrectatores  novos  bellorum  tumultus  ad  perniciem  rei  com- 
munis simulant  concitasse. 

This  is  clearly  one  of  the  avrideaeut  to  which  rhetoricians 
call  attention,  which  could  not  be  passed  over  and  for  which  a 
strong  \vai<;  must  be  offered  by  the  encomiast.  Ammianus 
presents  his  defence  of  the  censure  quoted,  in  the  form  of  a  point 
blank  denial,  the  incontrovertible  truth,  as  he  tells  us  (docente 
veritate  perspicue).  Constantius,  not  Julian,  stirred  up  the 
wars  which  have  been  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  latter.  Basing 
for  encomiastic  purposes  his  epilogue  on  this  sweeping  negative 
statement,  he  skilfully  employs  the  reference  to  gravely 
questionable  matter.  Julian's  career  is  notable  not  by  the 
agitation  of  wars,  but  by  the  bringing  of  them  to  a  glorious 
issue.  His  swift  and  brilliant  conduct  of  the  war  in  the  Gauls 
is  reviewed  with  strong  amplification  (25);  the  Alps  were  no 
longer  a  barrier  of  defense  to  Italy,  so  violent  were  the  German 
tribes;  tears  and  terror  were  the  lot  of  men;  bitter  remembrance 
shared  their  minds  with  sadder  expectation.  In  this  dire 
condition  of  affairs,  sent  as  Caesar  when  but  a  youth,  Julian 
achieved  a  glorious  triumph,  reducing  barbaric  monarchs  to 
serfs,  and  this  too  with  superhuman  swiftness  (mira  dictu 
celeritate).  Rapidity  in  victory  is  in  itself  a  /cotW  to'tto?  of 
encomium. 


64  THE    LITERARY   WORK   OF   AMMIANUS. 

In  the  same  careful  rhetoric,  Ammianus  paints  an  elaborate 
picture  of  the  horrors  and  difficulties  of  the  Persian  war  (23-24). 
With  armies  cut  to  pieces,  Roman  soldiers  in  captivity,  cities 
razed,  fortifications  destroyed,  Roman  empire  in  Persia  was 
threatened  to  its  downfall.  Forced  by  such  exigencies,  Julian 
attacked  the  Persians  to  add  laurels  to  Roman  arms  and  his 
own  fame  as  in  the  past,  had  it  been  the  will  of  Heaven.  A 
point  of  contact  with  the  laudatio  of  Germanicus  (11.  73)  may 
be  found  in  this  connection.  It  will  be  more  obvious  if  the 
passages  are  set  side  by  side. 

Ann,,  II.  73.  quod  si  solus  arbiter  rerum,  si  iure  et  nomine  regie 
fuisset,  tanto  promptius  adsecuturum  gloriam  militiae  quantum 
dementia,  temperantia,  ceteris  bonis  artibus  praestitisset. 

Amm.,  XXV.  26.  Itaque  ut  orientem  pari  studio  recrearet, 
adortus  est  Persas,  triumphum  inde  relaturus  et  cognomentum,  si 
consiliis  eius  et  factis  inlustribus  decreta  caelestia  congruissent. 

We  have  in  each  a  summarizing  reference  to  past  achieve- 
ments (quantum  dementia  temperantia,  ceteris  bonis  artibus 
praestitisset  .  .  .  ;  Itaque  ut  orientem  pari  studio  recrearet); 
a  prediction  of  a  glorious  future  (adsecuturum  gloriam  militiae; 
triumphum  inde  relaturus  et  cognomentum)  and  an  hypo- 
thetical clause  presenting  the  conditions  that  prevent  fulfill- 
ment of  the  prophecy  (si  solus  arbiter  rerum,  si  iure  et  nomine 
regio  fuisset  ...  si  consiliis  eius  et  factis  inlustribus  decreta 
caelestia  congruissent).^^ 

In  the  light  of  the  resemblances  and  parallel  points  of 
handling  in  the  two  episodes  just  reviewed,  it  does  not  seem  too 
much  to  claim  Tacitus  as  the  model  of  Ammianus.  We  would 
not  assert  a  slavish  imitation,  nor  need  the  statement  be 
pressed  so  far  as  to  insist  on  conscious  coincidence  of  treatment 
although   that   is   probable.     But   it   seems   clear   that  what 

"Cf.  Epitaph  of  Scipio  (C.  I.  L.,  I.  33): 

Mors  perfecit  tua  ut  essent  omnia  brevia 
Honos  fama  virtusque  gloria  atque  ingenium; 
Quibus  sei  in  longa  licuisset  tibi  utier  vita 
Facile  facteis  superases  gloriam  maiorum. 


THE    LITERARY  WORK  OF   AMMIANUS.  65 

Tacitus  approved,  the  later  Roman  felt  himself  privileged  to 
adopt;  that  wittingly  or  unwittingly  he  followed  for  Julian  in 
this  passage  the  lines  of  delineation  which  in  the  hands  of 
Tacitus  had  so  magnified  the  character  of  Germanicus.  Where 
the  instances  of  greatest  departure  from  his  model  occur,  as 
in  the  handling  of  the  laudatio,  it  is  the  insuperable  bent  of  his 
own  spirit  in  the  direction  of  biography  that  caused  the 
deflection. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Jan26i, 

iOiVlar'50B2' 

REC'D  LD 

OCT  17  1956 
26Ag'60Es1 

SEP   81961 


\VS^ 


^ 


^ 


\ 


D  21-100m-9.'48(BS993l6)476 


Mfc-CD  LP 

1 1 0-65 -9  ?« 


